Good work finding that. The resemblance is… uncanny.
Well, I’m consistent. I still think it is unwise to set out seating that’s not supposed to be used in a place where you expect people to want to sit down.
An attractive nuisance (not legally, but perhaps literally).
But an attractive nuisance creates risk of harm to the attractee. This only grants pleasure and comfort. Maybe “entrapment” is better?
You aren’t getting the reason for why people were not allowed to sit on the furniture and it has nothing to do with the story.
Why is it necessary to your narrative to keep this a deep, dark secret?
The chairs were an accessory, not made by our company.
They were a bunch of old ladies, I doubt they were any threat or would have said anything to her. And if they did, that’s on them, not me. It’s not my job to break up fights.
I don’t get where I said “pity me the white man”. It was more I found a way to exit from a possible no-win situation for not only me, but my company and her.
If I did ask her to not sit, and she reacted negatively, I am not comfortable with the term “race card”, more likely it would have been a black woman who has been pushed around by whites all her life developing an oversensitivity made even more an open wound over the past year.
I will agree with you on one point: we should never have furniture in the booth again. We don’t sell it anyway.
This all makes perfect sense, obviously the reasons must be a proprietary trade secret. I think I now have a theory for what may have happened here. In order to protect the company’s secret reasons for not wanting people to sit on their chairs, OP was probably secretly instructed to not put up signs telling people about the proscription. After all, if people don’t know that they are not allowed to sit on the chairs, nobody will ever guess the secret reasons for why they cannot sit on the chairs.
Does OP have any opinions on economic policy?
Why does it bother you and so many others here so much? Why can’t you accept the story and comment on it at its face value?
What do you mean? I’m just taking your posts at face value. You said the reasons for prohibiting people from sitting on the chairs are a secret. That seems important, so I’m speculating on how these secret reasons might fit into the overall picture.
It’s not “secret”. It’s just the reasons have nothing to do with the race issue. Its like asking why put up an Employees Only sign. Why not just walk back there?
It’s weird. It’s like saying there were buckets of hamsters in the booth but you won’t tell us why. The situation can’t be considered normal no matter what you say unless you provide a reasonable explanation for putting chairs out at a garden show with signs on them that say don’t sit on the chairs.
Let’s hypothetically say, and this isn’t the reason, we put the “no sit” signs on them because we fear if an active shooter entered the building, it would delay the time the sitters could shelter in place because of the extra three seconds it took them to stand up and run and hide. What would you do with that information here?
I’d ignore everything you say because it makes no sense. Your story isn’t credible.
Perhaps you mean “if an active shooter entered the pergola”?
…if this were indeed the case, then you not only chose to ignore the rules but also that you abandoned your post, putting lives at risk. Why would you do that? Why did you decide to treat a black person differently to a white person?
Lives are at stake.