Nancy Young wrote:

> "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
>
>

I don't want to get into one of those endless discussions. I do not
think you understand my point, and perhaps I don't understand yours. But
I'd love to eat with you, and if you are buying I promise to order only
*one* lobster with foie gras, truffles, and caviar <g>!

Peter