100s of Customers Pay for Each Others’ Starbucks; 1 Jerk Ruins it All

[Agschmid]

In a news cycle dominated by stories of social unrest in Missouri, brutality in Iraq and Ebola outbreaks in west Africa, you’d think a cute item about hundreds of customers paying for each other’s coffee at their neighborhood Starbucks might bring some momentary peace to even the most cynical of journalistic hearts.

Well, nope. St. Petersburg, Florida, of all places, was the scene of a nearly 400-customer long “pay it forward” chain covered by the Tampa Bay Times

Would you pay it foward?

29 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	22 (76%)
	No
	7 (24%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[sawdust]

1. Probably some greedy

Teapublican broke the chain...

[CBGLuthier]

48. She said she wanted to pay for her own drink

Other than the first guy no one really did a fucking thing with this pay it forward bullshit.

Everyone paid for a drink just supposedly it was the next guys.

Stupid shit that some mistake for a charitable act.

You want to do an act of kindness make a donation at a homeless shelter and get on with your fucking life.

[HERVEPA]

77. Gee, you must be a lot of fun at parties

[gratuitous]

89. Yes, but . . .

It's one of those things that bring people together, and while it ain't gonna bring world peace, maybe (maybe, maybe, maybe) it makes us feel a little better about each other. Heaven knows there are enough things going on that make us all feel worse about each other, strongly aided and abetted by certain people who profit enormously by mutual suspicion and bad feelings.

[davidpdx]

2. I suppose if it were at some place other than Starbucks.

I don't drink coffee.

[Agschmid]

3. How about tea?

[davidpdx]

6. On a very rare occassion

I think it is a good idea, I'm just unlikely to go to Starbucks.

[Neoma]

61. Tea at Starbucks sucks.

They use boiling hot water without paying attention to temperature whatsoever which in turn burns the tea leaves and makes every single order of tea that I get bitter as hell.

[Agschmid]

64. That's annoying!

[Neoma]

66. You can make your own tea pretty easy anyways.

I have my own electric kettle that shows the temperature and I only really use loose tea... I bought a hard plastic mug that looks like the cup they hand you when you order tea/coffee anyways. But if I want to cheat I do know a proper tea shop to fill my cup back up.

[pinboy3niner]

4. After an Occupy protest in L.A., some other DUers and I popped into a McDonalds

When I paid for our drinks, I also paid for coffee for a Skid Row resident who didn't have enough coins to buy it.

The homeless man promptly put all of his coins into the donation box for Ronald McDonald's House...

[Agschmid]

7. That really moving,

Nice job!

[frylock]

9. that's really cool!

thanks for sharing.

[U4ikLefty]

11. I think I was with you that time. Was it after the M1GS protests in Downtown?

We were with Fire, right?

[pinboy3niner]

12. That's right, The Three Amigos at M1GS :)

I'd completely forgotten about it until I was looking for a photo from that day recently and stumbled onto an old post where I described those events.

I think McD's was the only place we could find that was open.

[U4ikLefty]

15. What a great day!!! I totally forgot about it until you posted about it.

I remember I was exhausted & my feet hurt, but my heart was happy. So many great memories of OLA...the people power was amazing!!!

We've GOT to meet up again sometime. Shoot me a PM when your going to attend an action down this way. I'll do my best to show up so we can hang.

BTW, have you seen or heard from Fire lately?

[In_The_Wind]

52. That was really sweet of you.

Great reaction from the homeless man.

[Flyboy_451]

5. Absolutely!

In 2012 I started a pay it forward event as a Christmas celebration on another forum that I visit regularly. This particular event featured cigars. A list was assembled of those interested in participating. I sent the first package of three cigars to the first person on the list. They in turn sent three cigars to the next person on the list, and so on, down the line. When the bottom of the list was reached, we just started at the top again.

This event is still in action and the third year is rapidly approaching. Not only have we all enjoyed the cigars, we have made new friends and learned more about each other on a personal level that is not often seen on Internet forums. Great fun!

[VScott]

8. Idiots... Never... EVER, go to the drive thru!!!

Want to know why?...

Edit to add... it's actually a pretty sad commentary, evidence regarding the laziness/sloth of some people.

I'm 58, live in the NE, and can easily count the number of times I've gone through a drive thru on one hand.

[BlueJazz]

10. LOL !

[Xithras]

13. Out of those 400 people, only one was actually generous.

Put 50 people in a circle. Ask them to each pull out a $5 bill and hand it to the person next to them. Is that generosity? Not really...it's just a slightly more complicated way to pay for your own purchase. Everyone ends up with the exact same amount of cash they started with.

The only person in the chain who was actually generous was the first woman who started it all. She is the only person who actually gave money away in the transaction.

And I wouldn't consider the woman at the end to be a jerk either. If she'd taken the free coffee, paid for by the previous car, and THEN refused to pay it forward, she would have been a jerk. She didn't take the free money, and instead simply spent her own funds. That's not greed...she simply declined to participate in what was essentially a pointless mathematical exercise designed to make people "feel generous" without them having to actually give anything up. It's the Starbucks version of slacktivism.

[linuxman]

14. +1

The ultimate self licking ice-cream cone.

If someone in front of me buys my coffee, I;ll take it, enjoy it, then go on with my day. Thanks for the coffee. The end.

[ecstatic]

43. lol. For me it would feel too awkward

I don't accept gifts from strangers, although I'd have no problem helping someone in need (if short on change, etc).

[kelliekat44]

20. How do you end up with the exact same amount of cash you start out with? nt

[Xithras]

91. Simple.

As I said. Put 50 people in a circle. Ask them to each pull out $5 and hand it to the person next to them.

Because it's a circle, as you hand your $5 away, the person on the other side of you will be handing YOU $5. You are giving a $5 gift, but you are receiving a $5 gift from someone else. The net change is $0. You have been "generous" without actually making any kind of sacrifice or actually helping anyone.

[LisaL]

23. Exactly. It is pointless.

I would have done the exact same thing she did.

[LisaL]

24. And Starbucks shouldn't be doing this to begin with.

If somebody volunteers to pay for a purchase for someone else, that's fine. But what Starbucks was doing is asking people whether they want to pay for someone's order. That doesn't seem right, and I wouldn't even want to shop there if they were asking me whether I want to pay for someone's order.

[magical thyme]

30. +1

One person simply skipped her place in line. Only the first person actually gave anything away...

[KittyWampus]

51. human beings interacting on any level in a positive manner is NOT POINTLESS.

I have to say your post exposes something that goes much deeper than cynicism.

It seems to touch on a lack of connectivity and societal awareness.

In a world where there are forces trying to keep us divided, anything that can bring us together even for a second at a cash register is positive.

And I already hear your high-brow retort about how that isn't REALLY interacting. It isn't REALLY positive. These people should all be doing XYZ as if you even know what any of them do or don't do to contribute and help others.

[Trajan]

71. +1,000,000

Kindness in any form seems to be a luxury ...

Hooray for kind, un-cynical people ..

[HERVEPA]

78. Thank you. Very well said.

[Xithras]

97. That's a matter of perspective, I guess.

And I'd suggest that the reason you "already heard" my "low brow retort" was that you already realized its truth yourself. It's a silly game, and is less "interaction" than you and I are having right now.

I generally detest slacktivism of any type, even if it's something as minor as fake generosity. It's the moral and ethical equivalent of putting a Greenpeace sticker on your SUV, or signing an online petition to your Senator to complain about some evil bill that will actually kill people\starve people\destroy lives. It's an action designed to make you feel good without actually requiring you to do anything at all. I don't particularly care if people want to waste their time on pointless exercises like this one, but it's certainly not something I'd respect or participate in.

To answer the question in the OP....I'd take my free coffee, take my $5 outside, and hand it to the homeless guy looking for lunch. That's how normal people interact with other human beings and help people out.

[Iron Man]

112. Buying the next person's coffee is considered "helping others"?

Really?

[chrisa]

70. +1 - This is bullshit.

The woman at the end wasn't a jerk - she didn't actually take anything. Nothing was actually ever given either, minus the first woman's donation. Basically, they all paid for their own teas anyways.

[Gormy Cuss]

90. The jerk isn't the woman who broke the chain the 1st day. It's the blogger who did it on the 2nd day

The woman just chose not to participate and no one should call her a jerk for that.

The second day it started up again and a male blogger went to the Starbucks specifically to break the chain as a protest. He accepted the free drink, paid for a second, and drove off. Now THAT's a jerk.

Later he claimed that he had tipped the barista $100. (see link to second article for the whole story.)

I agree with you that this isn't really an act of charity other than the first person's offer, but apparently it made people feel good to participate so all good.

[Agschmid]

95. +1

[LloydS of New London]

100. Right on, Xithras!

[PoliticAverse]

102. That would only be true if evetyone's order cost the same...

What if you were buying a $3 drink and the person behind you were buying $10 worth of drinks (or the reverse) ?

[treestar]

103. No, the second did. They pulled up and their coffee was paid for.

They could have accepted the free coffee and left, no chain. Second person must have felt like they didn't need the favor so they'd pass it to the next one. Each person pulled up not having to pay anything and chose to pay for the next one. Though whenever the workers starting telling them about it, they started doing it to keep the chain going perhaps, and would have accepted the free coffee had they not known that.

[alarimer]

109. Exactly. This whole thing is stupid

Like the ice bucket thing. I'm pretty sick of that too. Sick of the videos, that is. I'm glad people are donating to that cause, but they can lose the ice bucket grandstanding anytime.

[Iron Man]

111. I like your answer.

Bravo!

(Not sarcasm, by the way)

[Niceguy1]

16. the lady's

Order was only for $2.25.

There is no fing way I am going to pay for someone elses large order.... I used to buy my beans there, and have jad $25 dollar orders on a regular basis.

[JaneyVee]

17. No more Mr. Niceguy.

[JVS]

19. Good point. Also, someone has to be last eventually.

[kelliekat44]

18. This was a great story and gesture. I wish we could get a pay forward chain in a grocery store for

WIC and other members of the poor and middle class in poorer neighborhoods. Just for one day all over the nation it would make a huge difference for families with children starting back to school.

[LisaL]

25. You do understand what a chain means?

Nobody is benefiting since they have to pay for someone's order instead of their own.
Where is the benefit? The only way somebody does benefit if they don't "play it forward."
In which case someone is going to call them a "jerk."

[merrily]

68. Don't just Ask your supermarket or grocery store.

At my supermarket, they used to ask, before they hit "Total" if you wanted to add a dollar toward a bag of items for the needy. (You can't get all your supermarket needs from a food bank.)

If you said yes, they added a dollar. I don't know if this is ideal because it forces some people to say no where people can here them. I saw the bags of free groceries waiting for their delivery guy. Win win win.

[Boom Sound 416]

21. Ridiculous to call one person a jerk.

The concept of pay it forward is not based on guilt.

That's Catholicism.

[merrily]

47. I don't think it's unique to Catholicism. Or even to Christianity.

[Boom Sound 416]

58. Not the Jews.

They wield it!

[stevenleser]

72. Jury Results:

I was juror #6


On Fri Aug 22, 2014, 06:54 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Not the Jews.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5428009

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Catholics pay it forward, but Jews don't?

Sounds very much like a stereotype about Jews being rich and cheap? Am I misinterpreting?

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Aug 22, 2014, 07:19 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Alerter is misinterpreting.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Stupid stupid "joke", I think. But, let the other posters expose the stupidity and thus give the poster a chance to acknowledge....
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm not understanding what the post is trying to say. It could be a stereotype, but let's have that as part of the discussion instead of censoring it outright.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That was my initial impression too alerter and I was getting ready to vote to hide. Then I went back a few more times just to make sure and what the poster is saying is that Jews wield guilt. Which while a stereotype, like Catholics wield guilt, isn't really an insulting or offensive one.
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Un-effin'-believable someone would post such garbage.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Boom Sound 416]

74. Wow!

Thanks.

I'll have to tell my Jewish mother to workshop that one.

[stevenleser]

82. The issue was that your comment wasn't clear.

I suspected that you had no malicious intent and might in fact be Jewish but it took me a while to understand exactly what you were saying.

[Boom Sound 416]

86. Thank you for for the careful consideration.

All my posts in this thread were meant as humor.

That Catholics have guilt and Jews wield it are a constant joke in my very mixed religion family. I myself am a Catholic Jewish Episcopalian if you get technical. Figure that one out.

Anyhow, the alert took me by surprise as to how one could extrapolate 'cheapness' and whatever the other term was from my obviously poorly articulated joke.

Cheers!

[LisaL]

22. I wouldn't play it forward.

What is the point? You are not getting anything if you are paying for someone's order. You might as well just pay for your own order.

[merrily]

26. Let me get this straight:

The Starbucks manager was willing to pay forward the payment by the last customer of the day, but the last customer ruined everything? Hold on and let me see if I got the story straight

Next to last customer of the day, let's call her Godmother, got a free coffee but paid anyway, so the person behind her could also get a free coffee. So far, the Starbucks is $2.25 ahead of the game, right?

Next, the last customer of the day pulls up, the alleged jerk, let's call her Drucilla, pulls up to the window. She says she will pay $2.25 for her own coffee, but not for anyone else's. So, she coughs up $2.25 for her own coffee and drives off. Is that right?

Didn't Starbucks close that night still $2.25 ahead of the game? So, who was actually responsible for ending it that night and not giving the first customer of the next morning a cup of coffee? Drucilla or the manager of that Starbucks, who had been watching his employees get diverted by the running tally all day?

BTW, just for the record, it was a cute event/game, but no one really paid anything forward, except for the first customer who paid for her own cup and the next person's.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. Wa it the last customer of the day?

I missed seeing that stated explicitly, although it's certainly possible.

But what would they do if somebody pulled up with only exact change? Not carrying credit cards, just the exact amount to pay for what they were ordering? Would they simply offer to 'pay forward' exactly that amount, telling the next car, 'The car before you paid 2.25 of your order'?

Once or twice, I've done something similar in a grocery store, when I noticed somebody with food stamps behind me, handing the cashier (whom I've known for years, and therefore trust not to simply pocket the cash) an extra $20 and told her to use it for the person behind me. But I don't expect them to simply pass that money along in some weird 'chain' gesture. I offered it for them to use, not for the ultimate recipient to be some random person who might very well be far more well off than myself.

[merrily]

31. It does not matter if Drucilla was the last customer of the day or not,

except that it made the issue of carrying it over to next day easier to illustrate. Besides, the article does not tell us what happened after Drucilla left. There is only the claim, which seems totally false, that Drucilla was the jerk who ended it all.

As for your question, the article seems to ask us--implicitly ask us--to believe that everyone in line at that Starbucks that day ordered a coffee of the same aize and kind and accepted the free coffee. That, too, seems bogus to me. I believe some ordered bigger sizes of coffee or no coffee at all. I even believe that some, offered a free coffee, declined to take any coffee at all.

But, sticking to the main premise of the article--namely, that Drucilla was the jerk who ended it all, even that does not seem to be true. If she had accepted a cup paid for by someone ahead of her AND also refused to pay for her own, you could say she ended it. Even then, it would have been the store manager's decision whether to start over by handing out a cup on the house to the next customer and asking that customer to "pay it forward."

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

53. The reason I brought up exact change was that my assumption

was that in order to 'pay it forward' on orders of probable uneven sizes, you'd need each person to be paying with credit card, and to swipe the card and leave the order open until the next person came through to see what to put on it. Then close that order and open the next order with that person's credit card before they left. You also couldn't 'skip' cars if that's how you were doing it, unless you had another cash register right there, since you'd have to close off the prior order. You also can't simply leave somebody's credit card order open all night long on some types of POS software - I don't know if it's possible on Starbucks' particular machines - to 'start' the chain up again the next day.

I don't think she's a jerk, but she might have 'ended the chain' simply by being unwilling to simply leave her credit card open to whatever charge might be put on it next, IF that's how they were keeping the 'chain' going.

[merrily]

57. I don't think the story was about paying for the next customer's order in full, only a free cup of

coffee and only the same size as the first customer had. I don't know that anyone did or did not pay by credit card

The story is a little skimpy on specifics, to say the least.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

60. Oh, in that case,

I'm amazed the chain lasted nearly as long as it did. I can't see even wanting a free cup of plain coffee if I actually was there to order something else. At that point, the 'chain' is more like somebody saying 'give the person behind me a free cup of coffee' and all of the people in the chain saying 'I really didn't want this, just pass it along to the person behind me'.

[merrily]

65. I am starting to wonder how much of the story ever happened.

[Javaman]

28. +1 I was thinking the same thing. nt

[tammywammy]

29. What if I just wanted a $2 cup of coffee

And they're asking me to buy the person behind me who has a $6 drink. Yeah, no thank you. I'd pay for my own.

The whole thing is silly.

[treestar]

32. sounds like not so much of a jerk as a dummy

she wanted to pay for her order. Yet it was already paid for.

[LisaL]

33. She didn't ask anybody to pay for her order.

[treestar]

37. She didn't get the concept of the chain

People were having fun whatever, with the chain. She didn't get it. Her order was paid for already.

[LisaL]

38. Well, I get the concept of the "chain."

I just don't want to play the stupid game.

[treestar]

40. Well then people are going to consider you a killjoy

If you don't like this game, or any other game people are playing. Not much you can do to stop that.

[LisaL]

45. See if I care.

[merrily]

46. The real dummy was the manager.

I can see a driver pulling up to a Starbucks window not being in the mood, after a day's work, to try to understand what was going on and/or not feeling like playing the game of "Of course, I'll take this *wink* free *wink* cup of coffee AND pay its price so the person behind me can also get a *wink* free *wink* cup."

But a store manager, who was $2.25 anyway, using what she said as a pretext to end this potential goldmine for his or her store? Now, that was dumb.

[LisaL]

56. Where is the goldmine?

Nobody is getting anything out of this game, since instead of paying for their order, they are paying for someone's order. Starbucks is getting paid for all of its orders, but that's it.

[merrily]

59. A potential goldmine in goodwill. Ever own a business?

Even my inlaws don't pick apart everything I say as much as you have been trying to do this morning..

Something tells me Starbucks and cigarillos are not your beef with me.

[TBF]

34. We do this at a Starbucks near where I live -

I've had it happen a half dozen times this year. I have my money ready so I just pay it forward.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

35. Jeezus, people, it's not the $2.25, it's the feeling of connecting.

Just enjoy it and not reduce it to a math problem.

[treestar]

41. Hey it's so unfair! Their order might have been a quarter more!

Sounds like conservatives. That's their first concern. Every single cent must be perfectly just! I'm paying for someone else's birth control! Oh the horrors (well it's OK if they paid for my hernia surgery, that's what insurance is, but they never notice that and boycott the insurance companies in favor of straight payments for procedures.)

[LisaL]

42. Have you seen starbucks prices?

Order could have been a lot more.

[treestar]

44. It worked for several hundred people

I would tend to say if you are at Starbucks, you have enough money. But since so many did it, no one found the price of the following car too high. Probably just varying drinks in the same price range.

If this lady was followed by someone who ordered coffee beans and it was $30, then it would make sense that ends the chain.

[merrily]

55. No one is knocking connecting. The math bit comes in

because the wrong person is being blamed for breaking the chain. Someone in the store made a decision to end it, and some (fake? real?) customer is getting blamed wrongly for ending it and is getting called a jerk to boot.

Perhaps worse, some DUers chime in, taking he OP at face value without thinking about it. In general, that is not a great way to approach any kind of news story.

[Orrex]

67. I didn't know it was possible to buy anything at $tarbuck$ for $2.25

I thought that a napkin was $6.50, for cryin' out loud!

[pipi_k]

36. So let me get this straight...

She's a "jerk" because she wanted to pay for her own (with her own money), which means that she didn't use the money the person in front of her intended to be for her, meaning the money would skip over her and go to the next person after her, who would benefit from it as if the lady in front of him or her had never gone through the line.

The lady who paid for her own didn't get something for free. The person after her got the benefit.

The lady isn't a jerk, and no chain got "broken". It just skipped a link, that's all.

Geez, the things that piss people off...

[merrily]

49. The chain did get broken, but not by the customer who paid for her own coffee.

Someone in the store made the decision to end it.

[uppityperson]

39. i'd not call her a jerk, just wanted to pay for her own coffee by herself. What did she ruin?

The only one who actually paid ahead was the first person, unless they paid more than their drink was worth.

That said, I have paid more in the past, paid double so the next person did not have to. But unless each person did that, they simply passed on the extra without paying ahead.

[LannyDeVaney]

50. First world problem

Fuck this consumerist bs

[Evergreen Emerald]

54. She may not have had enough money to pay for someone else's

Maybe one day a week she grants herself that tiny tiny luxury in her hectic minimum wage job. And, although it is difficult, she saves for that five dollar cup of coffee and simply cannot afford to purchase another.

[LisaL]

62. Or maybe she just didn't want to do it.

I don't see why someone going to Starbucks (or whatever else) should be made obligated to pay for someone's order. Unless they want to do it.

[treestar]

93. that's why I wonder how it worked so long

If the next person's is more than yours was going to be, it didn't make much difference that your cup was already paid for. So I'm surprised someone didn't have that happen and object. Most of the people in the line must have been well off in that some of them must have paid somewhat more than they were going to for themselves. Then others got to pay less than they were going to for themselves. So it must have been lots of cars with only one driver only getting one drink, and the differences weren't enough to get anyone ticked off.

Calling this lady a jerk would be less called for if we had the information on how much was the order for the next passenger.

[Agschmid]

96. Starbucks is expensive so usually I feel like the more affluent go there...

Or anyone who wants good coffee I'm 50-50 Dunkin/Starbucks usually I start off at Starbucks but by the end of the pay week I'm back at Dunkin.

[Skidmore]

63. If you want to pay it forward, you don't do it by paying for pricey coffee at a trendy

shop frequented by others likely in your income bracket. You take your money, time, and mouth to a place where true need exists and quietly start contributing to those who would truly benefit.

[dilby]

69. Kind of dishonest, the person said they just wanted to pay for their drink.

She paid $2.25, it's not like she took a free drink.

[NCjack]

73. I don't know what to call a bunch of Starbuckers buying gifts for each other.

A real "pay it forward" is assistance to someone in need. For example, a friend of mine was traveling in Africa. In the morning of his departure, he was asked by a causal acquaintance that he had first met and visited with at the hotel. The man (Muslim) had been robbed the night before and asked for a loan of $30 to pay for the taxi to the airport. He had asked all of the men (Muslims) in the lounge for a loan and was refused. One mocked him and said "ask the American." So, he did. My friend had just enough cash for both to share a taxi to the airport. The borrower began a discussion on making arrangements to repay by purchasing a money order in Tripoli and sending it to my friend in the US. My friend said "no, the transaction costs to send $30 are too high -- promise to help others who are need and ask only that in return they promise to help others in need. That is the meaning of "pay it forward." "Pay it forward" is an act of kindness to someone in need that is repaid to another person in need, who repays ...

[Agschmid]

75. That's a good story.

But anyone doing anything kind isn't a bad thing

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

76. +1 nt

[Boom Sound 416]

79. Agreed. But,

It gets those kindness juices a flowin'

[treestar]

94. True

Reminds me of that story of Obama paying for some lady's charge at an airport.

[oberliner]

106. Isn't that a standard scam?

"I was robbed last night and I need money to pay for a taxi"

[brooklynite]

80. No, for the same reason I don't participate in "waves" at stadiums...

...It's an annoying stunt with no value or purpose. The "pay it forward" meme was developed to encourage people to pay for something that someone else couldn't. A double-tall caramel latte doesn't fall into that category.

[Logical]

83. Lol, you sound like a blast! nt

[Demit]

85. Funny, I was going to mention the wave upthread.

It certainly does have a value—it's a pleasant visual to watch, that undulating action. And that is its purpose. You do your (very minimal, lol) bit so that you can enjoy the visual once it has passed you. It also demonstrates the power of a group of people to have an effect, if you want to get philosophical. And that is a purpose as well.

One could use your logic to defend not voting in elections, since one vote has no practical value. But if everyone did vote, we could effect great change.

[brooklynite]

88. Except that the pleasant visual is a distraction from the game.....which is why I'm at the stadium.

[Demit]

92. Oh, right, the frenetic pace & nonstop action of baseball.

LOL! That's when people generally start a wave, or hit a beach ball around. That's why they created the San Diego Chicken & the Phillie Phanatic years ago, to entertain the crowd during lulls in the action. Of course, if you're annoyed that you can't watch the relief pitcher walk in from the bullpen, & see every warmup pitch he throws, because people stood up in front of you for a second, I guess I understand. You must be beside yourself when they delay action for tv commercial breaks

[KittyWampus]

107. LOL! Friend has a story he was watching a baseball game on tv and channel surfed

found a basketball game and watched it to completion and then turned back to the baseball game… it was the same inning.

[bigwillq]

81. No

not in this situation. I am basically only spending what I would've spent on the item already. This makes no sense.

[Throd]

84. Sorry to ruin the feel good circle-jerk, but I just want to pay for my own stuff and leave.

This kind of stuff makes soft-headed folks feel like they have accomplished something meaningful.

People buying overpriced coffee and scones for each other from a giant corporation is an odd thing to pat yourself on the back about.

[Boom Sound 416]

87. Classy lingo nt

[IrishAyes]

98. Regarding the untenable jury decision reached re NOT hiding a certain post,

One juror voting Leave It offered this lame explanation: "what the poster is saying is that Jews wield guilt. Which while a stereotype, like Catholics wield guilt, isn't really an insulting or offensive one."

Speaking as an Irish-American Catholic who believes no one can be a Christian w/o being Jewish because we're grafted onto THEIR tree, not vice verse, I can assure the juror that quite a few of us take legitimate offense. I don't really care for stereotypes in general, especially not the orgy of Irish bashing that goes on every St. Patrick's day in the U.S. People claim 'it's just a joke' but they reveal throughout the year that they really do believe those things.

Would they indulge in such buffoonery on Juneteenth? Probably so if they thought they could get away with it.

[oberliner]

99. What if the next person ordered three drinks or pastries and drinks together?

If I am in the chain and agree to pay it forward, am I on the hook for everything that the next person orders? If my drink only costs two dollars and change and the next person's is over five dollars - how does that work out?

[Liberal_in_LA]

101. exactly, my drive thru starbucks sells expensive sandwiches and brownies

[treestar]

104. Being the drive through I'm assuming it was mostly just coffee

Or it would not have lasted so long, due to exactly that.

[oberliner]

105. Even so - some drinks are double the price of others

I am wondering how this logistically was handled.

[treestar]

108. My guess - an upscale neighborhood where

the thrill of continuing the chain trumped the relatively few more dollars they might have paid, until they got to the lady with the 2.25 order. And maybe the person behind her was a lot more and she wasn't a person who could afford that.

[Iron Man]

110. I'll find something else to be upset about.

Someone not paying for someone else's coffee isn't on my list of things to get upset about when there are more things to worry about.