I’ll fall out of my chair if that happens.
They should have done what Subway did, and freeze the pre-cooked dough for transport, then bake them at the final location. Why didn’t they just ask someone from Subway how to do it?
History sure would have been different.
I’m pretty sure what Czarcasm meant by Johanna’s “attack” on the woman was Johanna writing about her here, not that she attacked her with pita bread. He was still being a jerk, though.
Czarcasm surely realizes there are bad faith folks asking for handouts.
Not always. Maybe not most of the time, but it does happen.
If they are hangry I could understand, to a point.
Giving is a very nice thing to do.
Accepting with grace is another.
But she didn’t even verbally attack her, she just described the event. And praised bread.
Which is why I said he’s still a jerk.
For the record, I think the OP in that thread is a troll and this is exactly the sort of conflict it wanted to provoke.
That said, I’m firmly in Johanna’s camp on this one.
Thanks for that.
I had not considered that OP (stravisnky) to be trolling there. But now that you mention it, their history suggests otherwise. Their choice of topics to start or enter and their wide-eyed “I’m a foreigner” innocence as they occupy a controversial position is a pretty good tell.
And yeah, in the Czarcasm vs Johanna side-show I’m all for Johanna.
Smoke on the water, let’s go space truckin’! Fire in the sky…
(got one!)
I hadn’t known that. Hopefully, he did step away and got some perspective.
In what way did Johanna “attack” her by writing about the account? What are the actual words she used that constitute an attack against the woman?
Please refer back to:
Your explanation doesn’t make any sense. She never attacked the woman here.
Czarcasm‘s off-hinged rant seems to convey a belief that offering the woman bread was an attack.
Idk, that seems even less like an attack to me, but maybe @Czarcasm can explain what “attack” he’s referring to.
Part of the original post from Johanna in the giving homeless money thread. This is the only part of the post that wasn’t purely descriptive and had any tinge of judgment in it:
Interpreting somewhat, it appears that Johanna was unhappy to some degree with the homeless person’s lack of gratitude for the bread and apparent insistence on actual money.
And this is Czarcasm’s response, which seems to me a good deal milder than it was characterized over in this thread:
Czarcasm was shooting from the hip some, making assumptions that might not have been true (such as that Johanna was contemptuous of the homeless person for turning down bread) and apparently failing to note that Johanna had said she had no money at that moment. I bit later in the thread he explained his reasoning about why bread might not be welcome, but leaving out the other issues. Then there was something of a pile-on, which Johanna chose to bring over here.
Having read more of the exchange than I have quoted here, I think Johanna was not quite the injured innocent she has been portrayed as, there was an undertone of contempt in her first post (in my opinion, of course) and that it was possible that’s what Czarcasm was reacting to. Neither of them has covered themselves with glory here.
She didn’t pull bread past the expiration date from her pantry to give away. She took one of the items that she just bought and intended to use and offered it to them.
Johanna was the victim. Johanna was minding her own business. Someone approached her asking for something. Johanna offered the only thing she had that she could give. That offer was met with anger.
Want to know why people look away or cross the street to avoid beggars? That’s why.
I knew a guy who would prepare for his morning (20+ years ago) by putting a few nickels and pennies in his pocket, that way if a beggar got aggressive, he could throw some change in his cup that sounded significant and be a fair distance away before they could ever figure out that they were just given 13 cents. The point was to get as far away as possible from the person who may just get angry for no particular reason.
Johanna offered this person food that has been recognized as the most staple of staples for millennia and was greeted with anger, and then Czarcasm comes back as if bread is shit food barely worthy for consumption.
Czarcasm very clearly explained that his issue with bread is that it’s impossible to transport. As everyone knows, this is why nomadic peoples, like the Bedouin and Amazigh, absolutely never eat anything like bread. Certainly they’ve never even seen anything like pita bread, the specific type of bread Johanna offered. Because bread is completely impossible to transport.
That is not at all what he said. He said that a homeless person is unlikely to be able to be carrying anything to add to the bread to improve its nutritive value. You weaken your case when you mis-attribute to him things he did not say.