Aren't you, though? Let me ask you something, quite rhetorically. If a person walks into a store, decides he doesn't like anything, and walks out onto the street, is he or she a customer? If they never return again, is he or she a customer? Or does the word "customer" somehow imply a relationship between a buyer and a seller in some way?
All members of the public that walk into a store are considered customers, by this meaning "potential customers." When they buy something, they are cutomers in the strictest sense, in that they are "current customers." When a couple does the buying together, they are both customers to be sure, but function as only one customer because they make their purchase together. You see the word "customer" has always been doubletalk.
The machine reads only that someone was there and paid money. It's been programmed to recognize that for each person that pays money is a customer that can use a coupon. It only knows someone is there by virtue of a transaction going through it. So each transaction respresents in the records one customer. If one wants to use more than one coupon, they had best bring friends and ring up the same thing several times.
Picture this. A family of four walks into a restaurant and purchases a single one dollar hamburger, including tax. Then each member of the family produces a coupon for 25 cents off and walks out with a free hamburger. After all, each of them is a customer strictly speaking, right? Is that the way the promotion was meant to be handled, do you think? Do you think the restaurant had total loss in mind when they offered the discount?
Of course not. What was meant was one coupon per paying reciept. That's the way you should take those words from now on and not assume otherwise. Just because "the customer is always right" does not grant the customer the right to be rude, abusive, or greedy. That was never conferred and is still contemptible behavior. If a "customer" chooses always to abuse the coupon policy and exploit the business for profit, what harm is there in losing that customer by telling him or her off? Then the customer can go bother some other business and make them take losses. The first business spoken of is actually better off without them. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Anyway, the man at the window who started this post -- was acting like rubbish. Cheap, argumentative trash. That's why I cheer McDonalds for slamming the window in his bickering face. People can't always have their way; they especially shouldn't have it when "their way" is the wrong way. If his little girl was "traumatized," which I doubt, then it was because her daddy was behaving like a jerk. He shouldn't be empowed by our legitimizing his stupidity. Let him go elsewhere if he's that much of a burden.
None.
