Subway owner: we’re not perfect, but we try hard
Dear Editor:
I am the owner of the Subway at the Rat that was the subject of your staff editorial and cartoon Dec. 5. I am always concerned about customer satisfaction with my business and I am very aware that if we do not satisfy customers, there are other choices and we will lose your business.
Because I firmly believe that perception is reality, I will attempt to deal with and answer some of the questions raised in the editorial.
First, I want to deal with the comments about sanitation and “rotting turkey.” We are very cognizant of proper sanitation and work diligently to maintain safe food handling procedures. I do not believe we have ever served rotting turkey or rotting anything else. We offer to change gloves because we have customers who request it due to their dietary requirements, i.e. vegetarians, people who do not eat pork, etc.
The Subway was moved to the Rat at the request of the University. The reason was because there was too much congestion in Mallinckrodt. When we were located there, we only sold sandwiches and we did not ring up the sale. Therefore when finished at our counter, customers were required to make several additional stops, finally ending at the cashiers before leaving the food court. Even then, there were complaints regarding speed of service.
I periodically time the service at the Rat. When the line is as long as described, generally the length of time is 10 to 12 minutes, quite a wait if you are a “starving patron.” We want to serve you faster and we continually work at improving our speed of service. Pace considerations made an additional cash register impossible. Without exception, there are approximately 15 minutes at the end of every rush hour in which there is not line and service is immediate.
We make every sandwich to order, and this requires dialogue between the sandwich maker and the customer. I am sure that our sandwich makers are guilty of talking to each other; we do our best to minimize this, but I am sure it goes on. Equally, if our customers are talking to each other, this might hang up the line, as well. I assure you that we will do our best to eliminate inappropriate talking by our staff.
I am at a loss to answer the comments about swashbuckling scenes from “Pirates of the Caribbean” or the biohazard threat of eating at Subway. I eat there every day and the only problem I have is being overweight! Take that, Jared!
We are certainly not perfect in the operation of our business. We do, however, strive towards excellence. Criticism in this regard can only be helpful. To this end I can be contacted [email protected].
Loren H. Grossman
Owner, Washington University Subway
You are spoiled
Dear Editor:
Student Life has carried some stupid articles before, but your Staff Op-Ed “All Aboard the Subway…to Hades” really takes the cake.ÿ Frankly, I don’t even know where to start.ÿ
First off, the piece’s main idea seems to be “the poor customers are starving while the workers talk.”ÿ Give me a f**king break.ÿ The article essentially says that Subway employees shouldn’t talk while they make our food, because when they do, we have to wait ten minutes instead of five.ÿ It’s the Subway line.ÿ You won’t starve, crybaby.ÿ
Gripes like that just show you what you are, in this case spoiled pieces of sh**.ÿ Wait for your food, or don’t go to Subway.ÿ I’m not saying you have to like it, but don’t whine about it.ÿ Try working eight or ten hours a day for minimum wage serving snobby college kids, but be sure not to f**king talk while you do so because then they’ll “starve.”ÿ You think you’d put “TLC” into your work if you spent your days making subs for kids who apparently don’t give a rat’s a*s whether you live or die?ÿ What’s worse is, you didn’t even sign your names on this stupid crap.ÿ I’m sure the entire Student Life staff isn’t responsible for this trash, because there can’t possibly be that many morons at this school.ÿ If you had any dignity at all, you’d publish the names of the people who wrote this s**t, and then they would apologize to the people at Subway for the bulls**t that was published in Student Life.ÿ As for the food being “rotten” and all that other crap, Subway’s popularity speaks for itself, and I don’t give a f**k whether you like the food or not.ÿ That’s not what this letter’s about.ÿ It’s about the fact that you idiots are so full of yourselves that you actually have the gall to complain that the people serving your lunch are talking to each other.ÿ Go f**k yourselves.
William Gunn
History
Class of 2003
Devaluing apartheid
Dear Editor:
The recent use of the term Apartheid in Mayya Kawar’s article comparing Israel with South Africa was quite disconcerting. By using this term, the experience of Black South Africans under Apartheid is devalued. It is the same as when Bush is called a Nazi or cries that Western Europe has fallen under a cloud of anti-semitism. As humans, we tend to gravitate towards terms that represent similar historical experiences. However, there is danger in this practice.
Under Apartheid, racist policies segregated and disallowed a free Black experience in South Africa. Many may view the case in Israel as such; however, I would like to suggest another view of the situation.
There are many people in the Israeli government, including Ariel Sharon, and among the general population of Jewish Israelis that have called for a two state solution. (This does not Ariel Sharon a good leader in any way). Certainly, both Labor MPs in the last 10 years, Yitzhak Rabin and Ehud Barak have suggested this. So why has there been no creation of a Palestinian state?
I think many in the international community underestimate the fear of the Israeli population. There is a significant faction within Palestinian politics that espouses the idea that “from the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free.” This is not simply a West Bank and Gaza thing. A banner with those words hung in the student center of Rutgers University. There is also a significant history of terrorist attacks by the groups that believe this when peace talks begin. By bombing during peace talks, these groups create fear among the Israeli population. Not all Palestinians want a free state. Some want to get rid of Israel. This creates a very difficult situation. Right now the moderates on both sides have failed to combat the extremists on their respective sides.
I bring up this intertwined web of people to suggest that peace is not simply Israel reverting back to the 1967 borders. Sadly, Israel has made some poor choices, but those 400,000 people are real and have significant political backing. We have to approach this problem in 2003 and not in 1967. Using a term like Apartheid simplifies the matter too much, allowing for finger pointing instead of solution building.
Joshua Ladon
Jerusalem
Koop is na‹ve
Dear Editor:
In response to Evan Koop’s response to Chris Jensen’s “Bible-based homophobia” article, all I have to say is that Mr. Koop’s reaction is very na‹ve. He claims that it is implausible that “faithful Christians over the past 2000 years would not care, or simply not notice, if their most sacred text was modified.” However, this is an entirely likely case.
During the majority of those 2000 years, the average worshipper could neither read the Bible, nor afford to possess a Bible. Everything they knew of the Bible was told to them by the priests of the Christian church and often recited in Latin, a language in which they also lacked a thorough knowledge. Moreover, the Bible was reproduced manually by monks and scribes, and, while painstakingly copied for years, would likely have born simple errors even without intentional editing.
However, the simple fact that there are multiple editions of the Bible and multiple religious groups who espouse different teachings from their version indicates that there must be an obvious lack of consistency over the past 2000 years. When, for example, a Baptist says that he or she doesn’t read the King James Bible but insists that the Bible he or she follows is accurate, it is erroneous to believe that the “Bible” (whichever one that may be) is entirely unmodified from its original source. Additionally, since the church is not infallible and was for quite a while the primary operator in the lives of king and country, it stands to reason that certain parts of the good book would have been modified or removed for not so noble ends. In fact, the volume of so-called “heretical” biblical texts (some of it even concerning the study of angels) lends credence to the edited nature of the Bible.
For a text that was not written the day Christ was born, but rather was handed down for years by word of mouth before finally being codified, it is illogical to assume that there has not been some modification of the Bible throughout history. Some of it may have been for clarification, spelling mistakes, or confusing passages. But some of it could have been, and likely was, changed to promote certain agendas, whether church sanctioned or not.
Ethan Hattendorf
Art, Class of 2003
Class of 2003