[Vision2020] Archies on the Square

[Chasuk]

On 3/26/07, Robbie <calebsomeone at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Tom and Dan went to Archie's on the Square for breakfast last Sunday March 18, 2007,
> when they were being escorted to their table, there was a gentleman who
> appeared to be the cook, talking to a couple . Dan stopped and tapped him on
> the shoulder, and began signing to him he was
> there to eat with Tom and was excited about being there.

What is the nature of Dan's disability?  Does it preclude
understanding that it is impolite to interrupt a conversation? At this
point, might not it have been appropriate for Tom to intervene,
perhaps leading Dan away until the conversation was finished?  Again,
I don't know the nature of Dan's disability, other than that it
apparently includes deafness.  If his disability is limited to
deafness, then he should have understood the rudeness of his behavior
without requiring any input from Tom.

> She asked him to hold, went and got the owner, and it turned out that the
> same person involved above was in fact the owner [the cook who had them
> leave].

The cook had them leave?  Really?  This is not obvious from the
earlier description:

> Tom and Dan left and went and had breakfast at The Breakfast Club.

> Tom went over the incident with this gentleman expressing how rudely
> Dan was treated this morning. The gentleman said
> "your friend was the one who was rude, for all I know he was drunk!" Tom
> said he was not drunk, he has a disability,

I have read no recounting of rudeness, at least not on the owner's
part.  Unless I am supposed to interpret this as rudeness:

> When the gentleman ended his conversation with the coulpe (sic) he then proceeded to tell Tom "this is bad for my business my friend."

So, you are the manager of a restaurant.  You are accosted by a drunk.
 Yes, we know that Dan is not a drunk, but that's how the situation
reasonably appeared to you at the time.  You truthfully indicate to
the drunk's companion that "This is bad for my business, my friend,"
whereupon the drunk and his companion decide to dine elsewhere.  The
companion later phones you and threatens to write a letter to the
editor.  The situation further deteriorates, until finally some
hothead who knows only half of the story self-righteously rabblerouses
against you.

Is this what passes for justice in Moscow?