A Lazy Day at Waldameer 5/20/2011

Situation or person, doesn't matter. If she didn't think negatively of the person, she would have never pointed it out.

Except for the dad part, I almost could have wrote your last post, Gonch. We are both former rock stars. (Well, I'm still trying). I understand completely about toning down the look because of age. You know we are the same age, right? (Shhhh)

The last drummer in my old band quit because he thought that he was too old. You want to pick your drum sticks back up and join my new band? ;) We can go shopping together at Hot Topic for stage clothes. lol

The cool thing about piercings, crazy hair, and the like is that it got me great street cred when I was playing a concert. The normal people thought that I was cool when they came to see me at a concert, but at work they thought that I was a freak. lol

Lord Gonchar said:
I'm a former rockstar. :)

And wrestler?!

I used to do crazy things with my hair, had some piercings and whatever. I, too, used to play in bands. I grew out of those days when I was 22/23, and now I'm pushing 30 and have been happier being a suburban husband/average joe ever since.

I still like/play music, just a different kind, and the only visible tattoos I have are little and on my calves. I don't even know if most people notice them. The other one I have is above my sleeve on a t-shirt, so no one ever sees it, unless I'm swimming.

It seems to me the bottom line question is: "How much can you actually tell about someone from the fact that they choose to present themselves in a way that they know is 'unconventional'?"

The question does not seem to be (at this stage of American culture or this thread) whether or not it *should* be seen as unconventional...the fact of the matter is that it is.

Unconventional, even though more people than ever have tats and piercings, Andy?

---

Unconventional –adjective
not conventional; not bound by or conforming to convention, rule, or precedent

---

I would argue that it's at least becoming more conventional, popular and, acceptable than before.

Yeah, I wouldn't call it unconventional either. Seems pretty run-of-the-mill anymore.

Looked up some stats and it doesn't seem like there's a lot of numbers out there, but what I did find says:

-Thirty-six percent of those ages 18 to 25, and 40 percent of those ages 26 to 40, have at least one tattoo, according to a fall 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center.

- The National Geographic News stated in April 2000 that 15% of Americans were tattooed (or approximately 40 million people!)

- Esquire Magazine estimated in March 2002 that 1 in 8 Americans was tattooed.

- Harris Poll, 2003, estimates that fully 36% of those aged 25-29 have one or more tattoos.

- A 2006 a study done by the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology found that 24% of Americans between 18 and 50 are tattooed; that’s almost one in four. And the survey showed that about 36% of Americans age 18 to 29 have at least one tattoo!

---

It's not exactly rare or weird or anything. 1-in-3 or 1-in-4 depending on where you draw the demographic line.

What Andy said. It's obvious enough that people may see it as "unconventional," and that's fine. What I can't deal with is assumptions about that person's character.

I would say at this point that for a 43-year-old male in this day and age, having no piercings and no tattoos makes ME..."unconventional" (my guess is we make up about 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 from the US population 50 and under).

...and I'm not even a Mormon! ;)

That's the way I see it too, Gator.

Well, I'm not just talking about tattoos in any form (which I know is what Waldameer is talking about, maybe just so they don't have to draw the line elsewhere). I'm talking about a full sleeve.

A full sleeve does look kind of nasty. lol

Jeff was right, I DO have a negative opinion of this employee, but not like you people make it seem to deal with the tattoo.

I found it both shocking and a little confusing why someone with full sleeves would be allowed. Something small I could understand, with that being said, my issue was the employees lackluster attitude, and no customer service skills whatsoever.

It was JUST like a carnie...not caring about their job and just going whatever on it. I do expect a bit out of Waldameer seeing as it is a small park.

My issue was NOT with the tattoo(s) and I apologize if anyone felt as such. As I stated before it was just something I noticed, and thought was a bit distasteful, for someone in food service.

Your apology is still loaded with assumptions. Now you seem to be adding that having tattoos is too dirty to work in food service.

I am trying to find the terms of service but for some reason I can't locate them. Every once in a while someone says something that is not "family friendly" and they get admonished for it. Based on this converstation I would have to ask why? Isn't toning it down just a way of giving into "the man"? I say curse away.

It's in the "About Us" section. I agree that it's not as easy to find as it should be.

Thanks Travis. So how do we make this a family friendly site with so many freaks posting on it;)

In a food service industry, in general, most people are expected to have a clean cut, "professional" appearance. Meaning neat hair, no caps (unless to keep hair out of the face),. usually no jewelry except the ears...etc.

Now as a paying customer of the park, had I not ordered already or had they had another shop close by for my dippin dots float, I would have gone elsewhere. This guy was posing a potential health risk especially if any of those tattoos were fairly new, blood in the food, lotion, pus etc...I'm sorry but it was very disgusting to look at. I would not have minded if he had a few, up by his neck, or further up on his arm, but having tattoos all over his arm and hands had me wonder if any were new, and how much germs he would be spreading if such. Even if the guy had some tattoos with taste it wouldn't have bothered me as much, but to me he just looked like he was a punk who could care less about anyone else except himself and the fact he was getting paid meant he could have the attitude.

Your ignorance about tattoos completely invalidates your opinion. If he had a bad attitude, fine, but the tattoos were immaterial to sanitation.

"E" Coster Gurl, For your sake, I hope you've never eaten in a restaurant where there is a chef in the kitchen. Have you ever watched Iron Chef/Hell's Kitchen etc? It seems a lot of highly trained professional chefs have full sleeve tattoos. Hell, even Cleveland's own Michael Symon has a decent amount of them. I don't think sanitation has anything to do with it.