"P.Aitken" > wrote

> Nancy Young wrote:

>> Adults should know, and kids should too. You take your
>> cue from what other people are ordering, it's only polite.

> How exactly does this work? How does the first person to order - who is
> almost never the host - decide what to order? How is this person to know
> what the host expects in terms of expenses?

Somehow, in some way, people do manage to do that all
the time. Perhaps reading a book on business ettiquette when
dining out would clarify some of the protocols. Don't go getting
all excited, I know dinner with grandpa is not dinner with a
prospective boss/whatever.

> If I treat people to a meal, the point is to enjoy ourselves and, to a
> lesser extent, to express my regard for these people through my
> generosity. I do not want anyone worrying about what to order or the cost,
> I want them to choose what they like and enjoy it. If I cannot afford it,
> I don't do it in the first place. That seems pretty simple to me.

Nothing wrong with that, assuming these are people who
like you.

>> If I'm eating out, I order whatever I want. I don't care if it's
>> the 5 most expensive items from column A B & C. It never
>> is, but that's not the point. If I'm eating out and someone else
>> is paying, yes, I'm careful to order along the lines of what they
>> order, pricewise. Or lower. And the number of courses
>> they order, as well.
>
> You automatically assume that your host is a cheapskate who cares more
> about the cost of the meal than the enjoyment of his guests. I would be
> insulted to have my guests think of me that way.

So, someone invites me out to eat, and I'm going to think they
are a cheapskate. There's a leap. Uh ... they are taking me out,
how cheap can they be?

>> Never too young to teach children to think of others.
>
> I agree. Better to think of your host as a generous person concerned with
> your enjoyment than a pinchpenny who offered to pay for dinner but does
> not really want to part with any of his money.

My parents had their faults, just as we all do (even you!),
but they didn't let us order just anything on the menu,
especially when great aunt sarah or uncle joe was paying.

We were raised better than to go all out when ordering.

>> It
>> should be brought to their attention that you might order
>> differently when grandpa is paying vs mom and dad.
>
> Why on earth would parents or grandparents take kids to a restaurant they
> could not afford?

Perhaps because grandpa can't cook for a crowd?

> And then expect the kids to figure out that they really do not want to
> pay for anything but the cheapest
> items on the menu?

Who said the cheapest thing on the menu, and the situation
that started this was about kids ordering expensive food,
not just one course, either.

>> It's just manners, that's all.
>
> Saying "it's just manners" is usually - and certainly in this case - a way
> of saying that people should do things your way without providing any
> valid justification.

My way? If my way means I don't go whole hog on
someone else's dime, then okay, that's my way. You
got me.

>>>No, guests should not order the most expensive menu item,
>>
>> And here, you admit there is some line somewhere.
>
> Yes, and the line is just below those most expensive items.

Oh! That clears it up. I should have known that. (laugh)

> Most restaurants have a few luxury items that stand out in terms of cost -
> and I agree that those should be avoided when someone else is paying
> (unless it's Donald Trump!).

Stop right there. I do not care if it's Donald Trump. My
manners do not change because someone can afford it, perhaps
that's because it's manners. Uh uh. No. Manners don't - or
shouldn't - change like that.

> But I repeat, if a host takes people to a restaurant and then objects to
> them ordering typical menu items, then it is totally the host's fault.

I didn't see where the elderly relative objected at all.
I don't see where anyone objected.

And that's another thing. No offense to the OP, but I did
see later where they said something like, he got what he
deserved.

Personally, maybe it's just me, I would be upset to
find out someone said, I deserved what I got by taking
people out for dinner. I don't deserve anything bad by
taking people out to dinner, except maybe a meal with
people who'd never say such a thing about me.

>> People who don't pay attention to that wind up being the
>> ones bitched about who order expensive meals all the time
>> then just split the bill with the others at the table, apparently
>> unaware everyone is chipping in for their meal.
>
> Totally unrelated. We are talking about a situation where a host has
> agreed to pay for your meal. Splitting the bill equally is a different
> situation.

No flies on you, huh? I said, they are the people who turn
out like that. I didn't say anything about it being the same in
this situation.

> I have a strong aversion to cheapness - which is different from having a
> limited budget.

Cheapness is a trait I really abhor. And yes, it's much different
from not having the money.

> If you cannot afford something, fine, I have been (and will be) in that
> situation many times. Say so, no problem. "We can't go the Chez Fancy."
> But trying to play the generous host (by offering to pay for dinner) and
> then objecting when your guests take you at your word is petty and sleazy.

No. One. Objected.

But yes, there is more to manners than just not running
around the dining room. Of course, you would like to turn
it into me saying that everyone should just order water.
It's not the case, so don't bother.

I've taken many people out to eat, and I've been taken out to
eat by people many times. I've seen it all. One person, I know
she was kinda tight for money, we were having lunch, I said,
I got a raise, lunch is on me, she said, Oh, good, in that case
I'll have an appetizer!

Learn a lot about people eating with them.

Oddly, if you liked me enough to eat with me, I don't think
we'd have any problems with who ordered what or how much
or whatever, but you do like to make things extreme around here,
just to argue. It seems. With me.

nancy