Ophelia wrote:

> In UK it is illegal to use a cell phone while driving. If it is suspected
> that one has been used while driving, then cell phone records will be used
> to prove it.

It is illegal in several European countries.

Terry Pulliam Burd wrote:

> California went hands free last July and it's just ridiculous. The law
> seems to be ignored more often than not, AFAICS. I've even seen cops
> on their cell phones while driving. I have a new Audi that
> incorporates my cell phone into the sound system and I'm more likely
> to have a wreck trying to figure out which buttons to push on the
> console than if I were using the cell itself. And that's just
> *answering* a call. I'd be better off pulling over and parking to
> actually make a call.

Tell me about it ... It seems like no one follows the hands-free law
here. Part of the problem is that the first icket is only $20. Second
and subsequent tickets are $50. Considering that most moving violations
around here are a minimum of $341, getting caught on your cell is a
bargain.

My kids in Oklahoma tell me that though it's legal to use your cell
without the hands-free bluetooth, if you get in an accident whatever the
ticket was jumps up by $1,000. Not sure if it's true, but if they think
it is and it keeps them off the phone while driving, I'm all for it.

Might I ask which Audi you have? Bob really wants one. My eldest
daughter has an A6 and I truly enjoyed riding with her in it.

--Lin

George Shirley wrote:

> I made a loaf today with half a cup of crumbled feta cheese and half a
> cup of sliced black olives, also added a tablespoon of olive oil. It was
> a hit at our midday celebration of Father's Day. This was for a
> one-pound loaf, increase those ingredients if you're making a larger loaf.

Oh, sounds marvelous. Thanks!

Serene
--
42 Magazine, celebrating life with meaning. Inaugural issue is here!
http://42magazine.com

"But here's a handy hint: if your fabulous theory for ending war and
all other human conflict will not survive an online argument with
humourless feminists who are not afraid to throw rape around as an
example, your theory needs work." -- Aqua, alt.polyamory

Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote in
:

> I beg to differ. My boss has been cited three times now and the fines
> escalate.

At what point will he learn?

Serene Vannoy wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>>> ObFood: Today, I need to bake bread, and I want to do something
>>> different. Thinking of adding caramelized onions to my regular loaf,
>>> but might go searching for something fun. Any ideas?
>>
>> One of our favourites was to add sundried tomato and herbs. I
>> tried onions in various form but dried was the only type that worked
>> for me.
>
> Thanks for the tip. I use dried onions in bread all the time (takes
> about a teaspoon in my standard loaf), but I didn't know if cooked
> onions would work. I think maybe I'll go in a different direction.
> Hmm. Nuts and honey?

That sounds lovely

George Shirley wrote:
> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>> Serene Vannoy wrote:
>>>> ObFood: Today, I need to bake bread, and I want to do something
>>>> different. Thinking of adding caramelized onions to my regular
>>>> loaf, but might go searching for something fun. Any ideas?
>>>
>>> One of our favourites was to add sundried tomato and herbs. I
>>> tried onions in various form but dried was the only type that
>>> worked for me.
>>
>> Thanks for the tip. I use dried onions in bread all the time (takes
>> about a teaspoon in my standard loaf), but I didn't know if cooked
>> onions would work. I think maybe I'll go in a different direction.
>> Hmm. Nuts and honey?
>>
>> Serene
>>
> I made a loaf today with half a cup of crumbled feta cheese and half a
> cup of sliced black olives, also added a tablespoon of olive oil. It
> was a hit at our midday celebration of Father's Day. This was for a
> one-pound loaf, increase those ingredients if you're making a larger
> loaf.

That sounds seriously good!
<noted>

gloria.p wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>> The Ranger wrote:
>>> wrote in message
>>> ... [Major snippage]
>>>> The 2 cent tip is brilliantly simple and devastatingly
>>>> effective in relaying your feelings.
>>> Without a doubt, this is an underutilized tool available to every
>>> patron! Unfortunately, most are too timid to take advantage of it.
>>>
>>> We hit a Mexican restaurant the other day. The owner is devoting
>>> more time to actually managing his employees nowadays instead of
>>> doing everything himself. That's good because I really like seeing
>>> this place succeed where others are failing. Unfortunately, he has
>>> one waitress that just doesn't get it. He's constantly "assisting"
>>> her with simple steps, like clearing dishes before dropping the
>>> check (my major pet peeve). She dropped the check off right after
>>> she dropped the meals and we didn't see her again. At one point,
>>> he walked the dining area and saw that every one of her tables had
>>> customers waiting for her to come back and collect the money. He
>>> efficiently collected the plates and checks and was back before she
>>> knew what was going on. As he came by, I asked him to make sure she
>>> got her tip and set down two of my shiniest pennies. He tilted his
>>> head and promised he would. I promised to come back to see if
>>> things improved as we walked to the door. The two tables on either
>>> side of us also picked up their paper change and left the coinage.
>>> One couple talked to him prior to leaving. I'm pretty sure she's
>>> going to learn a good lesson or not be there in the future.
>>
>> He is either fool or he is sleeping with her!>
>
> It may be his daughter or another close relative.
> gloria p

Yes indeed, so it might) Whichever, he isn't doing his business any good!

Ophelia wrote:
> gloria.p wrote:
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>> The Ranger wrote:

>>>> We hit a Mexican restaurant the other day. The owner is devoting
>>>> more time to actually managing his employees nowadays instead of
>>>> doing everything himself. That's good because I really like seeing
>>>> this place succeed where others are failing. Unfortunately, he has
>>>> one waitress that just doesn't get it. He's constantly "assisting"
>>>> her with simple steps, like clearing dishes before dropping the
>>>> check (my major pet peeve). She dropped the check off right after
>>>> she dropped the meals and we didn't see her again. At one point,
>>>> he walked the dining area and saw that every one of her tables had
>>>> customers waiting for her to come back and collect the money. He
>>>> efficiently collected the plates and checks and was back before she
>>>> knew what was going on. As he came by, I asked him to make sure she
>>>> got her tip and set down two of my shiniest pennies. He tilted his
>>>> head and promised he would. I promised to come back to see if
>>>> things improved as we walked to the door. The two tables on either
>>>> side of us also picked up their paper change and left the coinage.
>>>> One couple talked to him prior to leaving. I'm pretty sure she's
>>>> going to learn a good lesson or not be there in the future.
>>>
>>> He is either fool or he is sleeping with her!>
>>
>> It may be his daughter or another close relative.
>> gloria p
>
> Yes indeed, so it might) Whichever, he isn't doing his business
> any good!

Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good at.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>> gloria.p wrote:
>>> Ophelia wrote:
>>>> The Ranger wrote:
>
>>>>> We hit a Mexican restaurant the other day. The owner is devoting
>>>>> more time to actually managing his employees nowadays instead of
>>>>> doing everything himself. That's good because I really like seeing
>>>>> this place succeed where others are failing. Unfortunately, he has
>>>>> one waitress that just doesn't get it. He's constantly "assisting"
>>>>> her with simple steps, like clearing dishes before dropping the
>>>>> check (my major pet peeve). She dropped the check off right after
>>>>> she dropped the meals and we didn't see her again. At one point,
>>>>> he walked the dining area and saw that every one of her tables had
>>>>> customers waiting for her to come back and collect the money. He
>>>>> efficiently collected the plates and checks and was back before
>>>>> she knew what was going on. As he came by, I asked him to make
>>>>> sure she got her tip and set down two of my shiniest pennies. He
>>>>> tilted his head and promised he would. I promised to come back to
>>>>> see if things improved as we walked to the door. The two tables
>>>>> on either side of us also picked up their paper change and left
>>>>> the coinage. One couple talked to him prior to leaving. I'm
>>>>> pretty sure she's going to learn a good lesson or not be there in
>>>>> the future.
>>>>
>>>> He is either fool or he is sleeping with her!>
>>>
>>> It may be his daughter or another close relative.
>>> gloria p
>>
>> Yes indeed, so it might) Whichever, he isn't doing his business
>> any good!
>
> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good at.

You have lost me with that one Nancy!

Ophelia wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:

>> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good at.
>
> You have lost me with that one Nancy!

Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you aren't
good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good at.
>>
>> You have lost me with that one Nancy!
>
> Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you aren't
> good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.

I hit send too fast ... regarding this waitress who would disappear
after dropping the checks ... maybe she was a great hostess so
they promoted her to waitress ... except what she excelled at was
leading people to a table and leaving them there.

nancy

Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." >
> ster.com: in
> rec.food.cooking
>
> > I think there is some confusion here as to the roles of the waitstaff
> > and the customer. The waitstaff has the job of waiting on me the
> > customer, if I happen to be on the phone, that is my business, not
> > theirs.
>
> Actually it is their business. I'm not saying you do this but many will
> probably want to finsh their conversation before ordering. The server
> has other tables to wait on and you're cutting into some of their
> potential livelihood.

Sorry, if I waned to eat in a mass production fashion, I'd go through
the drive through. The fact that I'm at a sit down type restaurant
indicates I'm there for more than just eating at light speed and getting
the hell out so they can stuff another victim, er, customer in. They are
on my schedule, I'm not on theirs.

>
> >
> > The waitstaff have the option of skipping me and handling their other
> > tables and coming back when I'm off the phone, or they can stop by and
> > ask if I'm ready to order.
>
> Well, you're one of the thoughtful people. Most people wouldn't be happy
> if the server skipped their table and went to someone else instead.

And honestly, they shouldn't skip me if it's been some time since I was
seated, just as if it had been some time and I was still looking at the
menu. They should still stop by and check to see if I'm ready to order
and be prepared to stop back shortly if I'm not.

There is nothing magic about a cell phone, it is no different than if
I'm talking to the person I'm having dinner with. If I'm having a
conversation with the person seated across the table from me does the
waitstaff get all in a huff waiting for me to stop talking to the other
person? Of course not, they stop by and see if we are ready to order. A
remote conversation is no different and neither the waitstaff, not the
other customers in the restaurant have any right to expect me not to
talk in the restaurant, whether I'm talking to the person seated next to
me or the person on the phone. The only potentially legitimate complaint
hey could have is if I'm talking excessively loudly, and again that is
no different whether I'm talking on the phone or to the person next to
me.

> >
> > It's no different than if I'm still looking at the menu, you can stop
> > and ask if I'm ready to order and I can either tell you to stop back
> > in a few minutes, or I can put down the menu and order.
>
> This is true but it makes me wonder if patrons are there to eat or talk
> on the phone.

I'm quite capable of multitasking. Indeed I may well be on the phone
(being on call frequently) and entirely ready to put the call on hold
for 60 seconds and rattle off my order.

> It may just be me but I find it incredibly rude and
> ignorant.

I find it incredibly rude and ignorant that someone might think that I
have a right to talk to the person seated next to me in a restaurant,
but not a person on the phone. There is no difference, deal with it.

> An emergency call, or a call to the babysitter is an entirely
> different thing though. I think a brief call in hushed tone is just fine
> but I don't want to know, or care, about how much your alimony payments
> are, who is divorcing who or what your kids need to wear etc.

Perhaps I'm traveling on business and am having a tele-pressence dinner
with my spouse? Again, it's not anyone else's business whether I'm
talking to someone physically next to me or on the phone, unless I'm
really loud (and I'm never loud).

The only reasons people complain about cell phones in a restaurant a

1. Stupid ring tones (my phone is always on silent/vibrate).

2. Nosy people only get to listen in to half the conversation.

Nancy Young wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good at.
>>
>> You have lost me with that one Nancy!
>
> Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you aren't
> good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.
>

Sorry, but that is the Peter Principle. Peter Pan Syndrome is used to
describe men who don't grow up.

Nancy wrote on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:22:54 -0400:

> Ophelia wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:

>>> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good
>>> at.
>>
>> You have lost me with that one Nancy!

> Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you
> aren't good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.

I thought that was the "Potter Principle", after Sheldon Potter who
invented it.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Nancy Young wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good at.
>>
>> You have lost me with that one Nancy!
>
> Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you aren't
> good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.

Ahh yes, thank you. That I do understand

Nancy Young wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>>> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good at.
>>>
>>> You have lost me with that one Nancy!
>>
>> Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
>> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you aren't
>> good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.
>
> I hit send too fast ... regarding this waitress who would disappear
> after dropping the checks ... maybe she was a great hostess so
> they promoted her to waitress ... except what she excelled at was
> leading people to a table and leaving them there.

Thanks,.. I did wonder what she could have been doing prior to being
promoted

Dave Smith wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>>> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good at.
>>>
>>> You have lost me with that one Nancy!
>>
>> Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
>> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you aren't
>> good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.
>>
>
> Sorry, but that is the Peter Principle. Peter Pan Syndrome is used to
> describe men who don't grow up.

I am more than happy to know what Nancy meant thank you

James Silverton wrote:
> Nancy wrote on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:22:54 -0400:
>
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>>> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good
>>>> at.
>>>
>>> You have lost me with that one Nancy!
>
>> Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
>> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you
>> aren't good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.
>
> I thought that was the "Potter Principle", after Sheldon Potter who
> invented it.

This is the book I referenced:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

nancy

Nancy Young wrote:
> James Silverton wrote:
>> Nancy wrote on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:22:54 -0400:
>>
>>> Ophelia wrote:
>>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>>>> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good
>>>>> at.
>>>>
>>>> You have lost me with that one Nancy!
>>
>>> Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
>>> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you
>>> aren't good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.
>>
>> I thought that was the "Potter Principle", after Sheldon Potter who
>> invented it.
>
> This is the book I referenced:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle

You did? I thought that you specifically mentioned the Peter Pan
Syndrome, which is quite different. The Peter Principle suggests that
people who perform competently get promoted until they get to the point
where they reach a point where they are no longer capable of performing
competently. The Peter Pan Syndrome concerns men who do not grow up.

Nancy Young wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good at.
>>
>> You have lost me with that one Nancy!
>
> Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you aren't
> good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.
>
> nancy



Isn't that the Peter Principle?

I thought Peter Pan Syndrome was when you didn't want to grow up.
;-)
gloria p

Michael \"Dog3\" wrote:
>
> "Pete C." >
> ster.com: in
> rec.food.cooking
>
> >
> > Sorry, if I waned to eat in a mass production fashion, I'd go through
> > the drive through.
>
> That might be best if one needs to talk on the phone. Of course then you
> have the driving while talking issue.

No, I expect to have dinner conversation just like anyone else eating at
a sit down type restaurant. It makes no difference whether the person
I'm conversing with is sitting next to me or not.

>
> > The fact that I'm at a sit down type restaurant
> > indicates I'm there for more than just eating at light speed and
> > getting the hell out so they can stuff another victim, er, customer
> > in. They are on my schedule, I'm not on theirs.
>
> Actually they are on the restaurant management schedule. They are there
> to provide a service.

They are there to provide a service - to me - and there tip is dependent
on doing such in an appropriate manner.

> If you are more interested in talking on the phone
> that allowing them to do their jobs, giving you good service,

Their job is to give me service, not to judge who I choose to converse
with. I expect them to seat me, take my order, serve me, clear the
dishes and bring me the bill, and my choice of dinner conversation has
no impact whatsoever on their duties.

> your
> suggestion above would be the route to go. Provided you don't sit at the
> speaker and yak on your phone holding up the line of cars behind you.

Whether at the drive through or at the table, talking on the phone or to
someone sitting next to me, it's the same sequence when the waitstaff
shows up or you pull up to the intercom:

- Customer chatting on phone or to person sitting next to them.
- Waitstaff shows up or vehicle pulls up to intercom.
- Customer says "hang on a minute" to the person they are conversing
with, regardless of whether they are physically there or on the phone.
- Customer places order with waitstaff or intercom.
- Customer resumes conversation.

My point once again is that there is no difference and those that feel
there is have some discriminatory bias.

>
> > And honestly, they shouldn't skip me if it's been some time since I
> > was seated, just as if it had been some time and I was still looking
> > at the menu. They should still stop by and check to see if I'm ready
> > to order and be prepared to stop back shortly if I'm not.
>
> Reminds me of the obnoxious woman at the deli counter. No numbers were
> taken and the woman was in a lengthy discussion with someone regarding
> her custom blinds. The deli clerk looked at her a couple of times,
> directly, and the woman wouldn't stop yakking. The clerk passed her over
> a couple of times and the woman finally got off the phone and announced,
> to the world, "Hey, I was next". The clerk sweetly smiled, apologized
> and explained to the woman that she felt uncomfortable interrupting an
> important call. Would this be considered service revenge I wonder...

Having been in the "on the phone while waiting in line" situation
before, I've never had a problem with it. When my turn in line comes up,
as the previous customer is stepping out of the way, I tell the person
I'm talking to to "hang on a minute", place my order (or whatever), then
move aside for the next person in line and resume my conversation.

Perhaps those who have a problem with this scenario are either too
stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time, or else stuck in the
decades old mentality of not putting a cell call on standby 'cause it's
real expensive.

>
> >
> > There is nothing magic about a cell phone,
>
> I doubt anyone thinks a cell phone is magic these days.

One would hope not. I've had a cell phone for about two decades now and
I didn't think they were anything special way back then either.

>
> > it is no different than if
> > I'm talking to the person I'm having dinner with. If I'm having a
> > conversation with the person seated across the table from me does the
> > waitstaff get all in a huff waiting for me to stop talking to the
> > other person? Of course not, they stop by and see if we are ready to
> > order.
>
> Of course it's different. The person you are speaking to is unaware the
> server is there and most likely will continue talking, distracting you
> further. But then you could always put the call on hold and continue
> your conversation after ordering.

Exactly, I have no problem telling the person I'm talking to to standby
a minute.

>
> Now there are restaurants where I'm sure cell phone usage is the norm and
> should be expected. An example might be a crowded restaurant in the
> business section of town. I would imagine most of the business people
> would want to conduct business while at lunch.

In any restaurant that doesn't have a "no talking" total silence rule it
is perfectly reasonable to have a conversation, and it makes no
difference whether that conversation is in person or on the phone.

>
> > A remote conversation is no different and neither the
> > waitstaff, not the other customers in the restaurant have any right to
> > expect me not to talk in the restaurant, whether I'm talking to the
> > person seated next to me or the person on the phone. The only
> > potentially legitimate complaint hey could have is if I'm talking
> > excessively loudly, and again that is no different whether I'm talking
> > on the phone or to the person next to me.
>
> Well, we have differing opinions. However, I don't mind someone on a
> cell phone as long as it is not loud and annoying. Some need to be
> available. Medical people come to mind immediately. They have to take
> calls.

We all need to be available for any reason. In these days of ever
increasing time pressures we need to take the time to converse with our
friends and associates.

> We have the technology and we should use it, wisely.
> Unfortunately the few that are oblivious, and think only of themselves
> because they are entitled, will make it harder for those that use them in
> public wisely. Same as everything else.

The key is the "everything else". Take issue with the idiots, not the
inanimate object.

> More and more states are making
> talking and texting while behind the wheel illegal.

Good think I'm sovereign and don't subscribe to their laws.

> Eventually some
> restaurants will ban them except for emergency calls.

And they will see a precipitous drop in business I expect. It's quite a
bit different than say smoking bans.

> My doctor's office
> will not longer allow cell phone usage in the waiting area.

When / if my doc tries such a thing, they will be informed that either
they loose the silly rule or they loose a customer. I've fired docs
before and have no problem doing so again.

> People tend
> to talk louder when they are on the phone that when talking face to face.
> Lots of reasons for that. Poor reception etc.

Probably just ignorance. I never talk louder, and talking louder does
nothing to overcome bad reception.

>
> >
> > I'm quite capable of multitasking. Indeed I may well be on the phone
> > (being on call frequently) and entirely ready to put the call on hold
> > for 60 seconds and rattle off my order.
>
> You are taking this personally and becomming defensive. Nothing I've said
> was directed towards you personally. I am sure you are capable of
> multitasking and never inconvenience anyone with your phone usage. The
> vast majority of people I've encountered are not as polite or capable as
> you are.

I'm attacking the entire misguided mistaken concept that somehow talking
to someone on the phone is different than talking to someone sitting
next to you. Unless you want a totally silent no talking allowed
restaurant, you have no right to complain or discriminate about who I
choose to converse with while I'm having my dinner.

>
> >
> >> It may just be me but I find it incredibly rude and
> >> ignorant.
> >
> > I find it incredibly rude and ignorant that someone might think that I
> > have a right to talk to the person seated next to me in a restaurant,
> > but not a person on the phone. There is no difference, deal with it.
>
> Well, there is a difference and we disagree.

Please articulate this difference, I'm very interested in what this
mysterious difference between the same conversation with someone sitting
next to you or on the phone is. It's the exact same words, only with the
phone you only get to hear half of them, so it should be even less
distracting... unless you're nosy.

> I deal with it. I vote.
> This has nothing to do with the convo but I'm just waiting to see the how
> the greedy insurance companies will try to cash in on the chat/text while
> driving issue.

I suspect they'll try to write an exclusion into policies to deny claims
if someone was chatting/texting at the time of the accident, regardless
of the actual facts of the accident.

>
> > Perhaps I'm traveling on business and am having a tele-pressence
> > dinner with my spouse? Again, it's not anyone else's business whether
> > I'm talking to someone physically next to me or on the phone, unless
> > I'm really loud (and I'm never loud).
>
> Very cool. You are a polite chatter. I have no problem with that.
>
> >
> > The only reasons people complain about cell phones in a restaurant
> > a
> >
> > 1. Stupid ring tones (my phone is always on silent/vibrate).
>
> Agreed.
>
> >
> > 2. Nosy people only get to listen in to half the conversation.
>
> You forgot the and.
>
> 2. Nosy people only got to listen in to half the conversation and people
> who don't give a shit about, and don't want to hear, what you have to say
> to begin with.

Nope, no different than the same conversation with the person sitting
next to you.

In article >,
Serene Vannoy > wrote:

> Ophelia wrote:
> > Serene Vannoy wrote:
> >> ObFood: Today, I need to bake bread, and I want to do something
> >> different. Thinking of adding caramelized onions to my regular loaf,
> >> but might go searching for something fun. Any ideas?
> >
> > One of our favourites was to add sundried tomato and herbs. I tried
> > onions
> > in various form but dried was the only type that worked for me.
>
> Thanks for the tip. I use dried onions in bread all the time (takes
> about a teaspoon in my standard loaf), but I didn't know if cooked
> onions would work. I think maybe I'll go in a different direction. Hmm.
> Nuts and honey?
>
> Serene

I'll bet toasted onion would be good?
--
Peace! Om

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.
-- Anon.


Subscribe:

Nancy Young wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good at.
>>
>> You have lost me with that one Nancy!
>
> Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you aren't
> good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.
>
> nancy

I don't recall that this had anything to do with Peter Pan.
Rather, it was named after Laurence J. Peter, who co-authored The
Peter Principle. I actually read this when it came out and took
it to heart--probably too much so.

--
Jean B.

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:00:20 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

>
> Some people can't even manage to walk and talk on the cell phone. I
> confess to not being good in crowds. I was walking around in a big city
> today and encountered dozens of people so intent on yakking on their
> cell phones that they were a hazard to other pedestrians. I was
> reminded of an incident in a mall last year where I saw a young woman
> had walked on a course perpendicular to mine, cell phone glued to her
> ear. She went behind a car on display. I lost sight of her. Next thing I
> knew she came barrelling back the other way and crashed into me. I
> didn't have time to react and she bounced off me and her phone went
> flying. Then she gave me the dirtiest look as if I had done something
> wrong.

<snort>

your pal,
blake

Jean wrote on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:30:53 -0400:

> Nancy Young wrote:
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>>> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was
>>>> good at.
>>>
>>> You have lost me with that one Nancy!
>>
>> Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
>> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you
>> aren't good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.
>>
>> nancy

> I don't recall that this had anything to do with Peter Pan. Rather, it
> was named after Laurence J. Peter, who co-authored The Peter
> Principle. I actually read this when it came out
> and took it to heart--probably too much so.

Amazing how many wrong memories of the name there were, including mine!
But, it's one of the universal truths.

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

On Jun 21, 2:20*pm, Serene Vannoy > wrote:
> *> Stu wrote:
> > On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 13:24:34 -0400, George >
> > wrote:
>
> >> Kalmia wrote:
> >>> On Jun 21, 1:08 pm, "--> Stu" > wrote:
>
> >>> *the law ( no talking on handheld cell phone) is coming soon ( and
> >>>> no one is ready).
> >>> I envy you. *You have some legislators with b--ls.
>
> >> Naw, we are turning into nanny states with feel good laws. The three
> >> neighboring states have "hands free" laws and ours is supposed to be
> >> next. But police can already cite you without any additional laws if
> >> they observe you weaving etc. Should we also have laws that we can't
> >> change the station on the radio or talk to a vehicle occupant too?
>
> > No, but if you're driving with undue care and caution while engrossed
> > in your cell phone conversation, you need someone to step in with
> > either a hefty fine or a more serious charge affecting your privilege
> > to drive before more are killed.
>
> Why? It's already against the law to drive recklessly. Should there be a
> law for every single reason you might drive recklessly? *No driving with
> an annoying two-year-old in the car? No driving while you're worried
> about being laid off? *No driving while your foot hurts?
>
> Serene

It's not a good law: A cell phone law should completely ban drivers
using cell phones. Why? Because most studies of driving and cell
phone use show that drivers on cell phones perform worse than drunk
drivers on many driving tasks.

Extracts from Redelmeier, D. A. & Tibshirani, R. J. Association
between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. N Engl
J Med, 1997, 336, 453-458 (The first one I pulled out of the bib data
base)

"The risk of a collision when using a cellular telephone was four
times higher than the risk when a cellular telephone was not being
used . "

"... units that allowed the hands to be free offered no safety
advantage over hand-held units ."

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

On Jun 21, 2:36*pm, "James Silverton" >
wrote:
> *Serene *wrote *on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:26:15 -0700:
>
>
>
>
>
> > elaich wrote:
> >> George > wrote in
> -
> >> september.org:
>
> >>> Should we also have laws that we can't change the station on the
> >>> radio or talk to a vehicle
> >>> occupant too?
>
> >> That is a completely different thing. The brain is capable of
> >> multitasking in it's normal environment. We are surrounded by
> >> sounds that do not distract us from what we are doing. Most
> >> people are able to drive while talking to a passenger,
> >> changing the radio, etc.
> > Not true, and it's also not true that the hands-free option is
> > safer.
>
> What do think of the totally hands-free Bluetooth phones? They can be
> programmed to autodial simply by speaking a name.

Most of the studies say that they are just as dangerous. It is not
having something in your hand: It appears to be the cognitive loading
that comes from talking on the phone where you have many fewer queues
about what the other speaker is trying to say.

On Jun 22, 1:08*am, elaich > wrote:
> Terry Pulliam Burd > wrote :
>
> > I beg to differ. My boss has been cited three times now and the fines
> > escalate.
>
> At what point will he learn?

It sounds like a dog and a porkupine. If he hasn't learned the first
time he'll never learn. Come to think of it, a lot of drunk drivers
are like this too.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 09:34:51 -0700, RegForte wrote:

> The Ranger wrote:
>
>> We've all seen those customers that just can't seem to put down their phone,
>> let alone turn it off, while dining out. What would you do if a server
>> walked up to your table talking on his or her cell phone and offered to take
>> your order?
>>
>
> Go ahead and order the food. Then call him every 3 minutes asking
> where your food is.

<snort>

your pal,
blake

On Jun 22, 9:22*am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
> > Nancy Young wrote:
> >> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good at.
>
> > You have lost me with that one Nancy!
>
> Sorry! *Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you aren't
> good at. *Called Rising to your level of incompetence.
>
> nancy

Peter Pan? I know it as the Peter Principle, named after Dr. Laurence
J. Peter. I've never heard it called the Peter Pan Principle.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle for a quick summary.
BTW the book mentioned is a lot of fun.

John Kane Kingston ON Canada

On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:22:54 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:

> Ophelia wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good at.
>>
>> You have lost me with that one Nancy!
>
> Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you aren't
> good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.
>
> nancy

you're thinking 'peter principle,' after laurence j. peter.

but i was thinking 'peter pan'ed' meant that someone younger and cuter
displaced her from the hostess job.

your pal,
blake

Nancy Young wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>> Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> Maybe she was Peter Pan'ed from the hostess job she was good at.
>>
>> You have lost me with that one Nancy!
>
> Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you aren't
> good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.

No, that's the Peter Principle. Peter Pan syndrome is when you don't
want to grow up.

Serene

--
42 Magazine, celebrating life with meaning. Inaugural issue is here!
http://42magazine.com

"But here's a handy hint: if your fabulous theory for ending war and
all other human conflict will not survive an online argument with
humourless feminists who are not afraid to throw rape around as an
example, your theory needs work." -- Aqua, alt.polyamory

John Kane wrote:
> On Jun 22, 9:22 am, "Nancy Young" > wrote:

>> Sorry! Peter Pan syndrome is when you're really good at your
>> job so they keep promoting you until you're in a job you aren't
>> good at. Called Rising to your level of incompetence.

> Peter Pan? I know it as the Peter Principle, named after Dr. Laurence
> J. Peter. I've never heard it called the Peter Pan Principle.
>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle for a quick summary.
> BTW the book mentioned is a lot of fun.
>
> John Kane Kingston ON Canada

I read it many years ago. I forget why I thought that Pan belonged
in there.

nancy

Pete C. wrote:

> No, I expect to have dinner conversation just like anyone else eating at
> a sit down type restaurant. It makes no difference whether the person
> I'm conversing with is sitting next to me or not.

Good for you, but I really resent having to overhear one side of a
conversation half way across a restaurant, usually so loud that it
drowns out the other two sided conversations with real people present.

>
> They are there to provide a service - to me - and there tip is dependent
> on doing such in an appropriate manner.

In other words, you are going to leave a big enough tip to compensate
for rudeness ?



> Their job is to give me service, not to judge who I choose to converse
> with. I expect them to seat me, take my order, serve me, clear the
> dishes and bring me the bill, and my choice of dinner conversation has
> no impact whatsoever on their duties.

I suppose their presence there is an intrusion, so the best thing for a
server to do is to leave and come back when you are finished your call.


> My point once again is that there is no difference and those that feel
> there is have some discriminatory bias.



> Having been in the "on the phone while waiting in line" situation
> before, I've never had a problem with it. When my turn in line comes up,
> as the previous customer is stepping out of the way, I tell the person
> I'm talking to to "hang on a minute", place my order (or whatever), then
> move aside for the next person in line and resume my conversation.


I am probably not the only person who has been stuck in line behind some
rude buffoon who thinks that their phone conversation with their friend
is more important that the time of the business, whose employer is
wasting time waiting for them to place their order, or the time of the
people waiting in line behind them.



>> Well, we have differing opinions. However, I don't mind someone on a
>> cell phone as long as it is not loud and annoying. Some need to be
>> available. Medical people come to mind immediately. They have to take
>> calls.
>
> We all need to be available for any reason. In these days of ever
> increasing time pressures we need to take the time to converse with our
> friends and associates.

No. We don't all need to be on call. There is a time and place for
everything. A restaurant is not a place to be conducting business for
all to hear, and no one should have to listen to some inane conversation
between two people who have nothing important to say that could easily
be said elsewhere. Take it outside.


>> People tend
>> to talk louder when they are on the phone that when talking face to face.
>> Lots of reasons for that. Poor reception etc.
>
> Probably just ignorance. I never talk louder, and talking louder does
> nothing to overcome bad reception.

From my experience, very few people do not talk louder when on a cell
phone. Bad reception is another reason to take the call outside.



> I'm attacking the entire misguided mistaken concept that somehow talking
> to someone on the phone is different than talking to someone sitting
> next to you. Unless you want a totally silent no talking allowed
> restaurant, you have no right to complain or discriminate about who I
> choose to converse with while I'm having my dinner.


It is much like taking a call and having an extended conversation with
someone on the phone when there are guests present. It's just plain rude.



>>> 2. Nosy people only get to listen in to half the conversation.
>> You forgot the and.
>>
>> 2. Nosy people only got to listen in to half the conversation and people
>> who don't give a shit about, and don't want to hear, what you have to say
>> to begin with.
>
> Nope, no different than the same conversation with the person sitting
> next to you.

Except that there is a person there. It is nosey for the people nearby
to make a conscious effort to eavesdrop on your conversation, but the
fact is that most people talk so loud on a cell phone that the people
next to them can't help but overhear, along with half the people in the
restaurant.

Michael "Dog3" wrote:
> "Pete C." >
> ster.com: in
> rec.food.cooking
>
>> Nope, no different than the same conversation with the person sitting
>> next to you.
>
> *sigh* We will probably disagree on this until we're both dead and buried.
> Unfortunately most people are not as consistantly polite as needed when in
> public. We'll just have to agree to disagree instead of kvetching about it.

Unfortunately, people lacking in manners are unaware of their lack of
manners.

"The Ranger" > wrote in message
...
> We've all seen those customers that just can't seem to put down their
> phone, let alone turn it off, while dining out. What would you do if a
> server walked up to your table talking on his or her cell phone and
> offered to take your order?
>
> The Ranger

Fire the manager!

Dimitri

Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> In article >,
> "The Ranger" > wrote:
>
>> We've all seen those customers that just can't seem to put down their
>> phone, let alone turn it off, while dining out. What would you do if
>> a server walked up to your table talking on his or her cell phone and
>> offered to take your order?
>>
>> The Ranger
>
> I think you're reaching. Has it ever happened to you?
> (I'd be tempted to call the restaurant after getting the server's name
> and explain why I was leaving.)
>

From your cell phone?
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Stu wrote on Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:49:28 -0500:

>> On Jun 21, 2:36 pm, "James Silverton"
>> > wrote:
>>> Serene wrote on Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:26:15 -0700:
>>>
>> >> elaich wrote:
>> >>> George > wrote in
>> >>> -
>> >>> september.org:
>>>
>> >>>> Should we also have laws that we can't change the
>> >>>> station on the radio or talk to a vehicle occupant too?
>>>
>> >>> That is a completely different thing. The brain is
>> >>> capable of multitasking in it's normal environment. We
>> >>> are surrounded by sounds that do not distract us from
>> >>> what we are doing. Most people are able to drive while
>> >>> talking to a passenger, changing the radio, etc.
>> >> Not true, and it's also not true that the hands-free
>> >> option is safer.
>>>
>>> What do think of the totally hands-free Bluetooth phones?
>>> They can be programmed to autodial simply by speaking a
>>> name.
>>
>> Most of the studies say that they are just as dangerous. It
>> is not having something in your hand: It appears to be the
>> cognitive loading that comes from talking on the phone where
>> you have many fewer queues about what the other speaker is
>> trying to say.

I'd repeat that when you are driving you don't look at the passenger
when you are talking, so what's the difference?

--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Pete C. wrote:
>
> > No, I expect to have dinner conversation just like anyone else eating at
> > a sit down type restaurant. It makes no difference whether the person
> > I'm conversing with is sitting next to me or not.
>
> Good for you, but I really resent having to overhear one side of a
> conversation half way across a restaurant, usually so loud that it
> drowns out the other two sided conversations with real people present.

I for one never talk any louder on the phone than I do to people seated
at my table. I also tend to eat out a fair amount from time to time, and
have rarely observed anyone on a cell phone talking loudly either.
Usually the loudest distraction at a restaurant in the darling hell
spawn of some PYV obliviots.

>
> >
> > They are there to provide a service - to me - and there tip is dependent
> > on doing such in an appropriate manner.
>
> In other words, you are going to leave a big enough tip to compensate
> for rudeness ?

I leave a tip that is directly proportional to the service provided. If
the waitstaff chooses to be inattentive in servicing my party, then they
will receive a very small tip. If the waitstaff is attentive, accurate
and pleasant they will receive a good tip.

>
> > Their job is to give me service, not to judge who I choose to converse
> > with. I expect them to seat me, take my order, serve me, clear the
> > dishes and bring me the bill, and my choice of dinner conversation has
> > no impact whatsoever on their duties.
>
> I suppose their presence there is an intrusion, so the best thing for a
> server to do is to leave and come back when you are finished your call.

No, the best thing for the waitstaff to do is to do their job. This
means returning promptly to take my order, ensuring that the order goes
to the kitchen in a timely manner, ensuring the food is delivered in a
timely manner, ensuring our beverages are refilled as appropriate and
following up when we're finishing the meal to see if we want to order
dessert or are ready for the bill. None of this has any connection to
whether I am having a conversation with someone at my table, or someone
on the phone.

>
> > My point once again is that there is no difference and those that feel
> > there is have some discriminatory bias.
>
> > Having been in the "on the phone while waiting in line" situation
> > before, I've never had a problem with it. When my turn in line comes up,
> > as the previous customer is stepping out of the way, I tell the person
> > I'm talking to to "hang on a minute", place my order (or whatever), then
> > move aside for the next person in line and resume my conversation.
>
> I am probably not the only person who has been stuck in line behind some
> rude buffoon who thinks that their phone conversation with their friend
> is more important that the time of the business, whose employer is
> wasting time waiting for them to place their order, or the time of the
> people waiting in line behind them.

Probably, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the cell phone. The
idiots who act like that are just idiots plain and simple, and if it
isn't the cell phone, it would be the makeup, ipod, coupon envelope, or
some other distraction that keeps them from dealing with the task at
hand.

>
> >> Well, we have differing opinions. However, I don't mind someone on a
> >> cell phone as long as it is not loud and annoying. Some need to be
> >> available. Medical people come to mind immediately. They have to take
> >> calls.
> >
> > We all need to be available for any reason. In these days of ever
> > increasing time pressures we need to take the time to converse with our
> > friends and associates.
>
> No. We don't all need to be on call.

Tell that to my employer, I'd be quite happy to not be on call.

> There is a time and place for
> everything.

Indeed.

> A restaurant is not a place to be conducting business for
> all to hear

Restaurants have always been such a place, long before cell phones ever
existed.

> and no one should have to listen to some inane conversation
> between two people who have nothing important to say that could easily
> be said elsewhere. Take it outside.

Again, people have always had conversations in restaurants, long before
cell phones were invented.

>
> >> People tend
> >> to talk louder when they are on the phone that when talking face to face.
> >> Lots of reasons for that. Poor reception etc.
> >
> > Probably just ignorance. I never talk louder, and talking louder does
> > nothing to overcome bad reception.
>
> From my experience, very few people do not talk louder when on a cell
> phone. Bad reception is another reason to take the call outside.

Your experience doesn't mesh with mine. Must be the people you associate
with.

>
> > I'm attacking the entire misguided mistaken concept that somehow talking
> > to someone on the phone is different than talking to someone sitting
> > next to you. Unless you want a totally silent no talking allowed
> > restaurant, you have no right to complain or discriminate about who I
> > choose to converse with while I'm having my dinner.
>
> It is much like taking a call and having an extended conversation with
> someone on the phone when there are guests present. It's just plain rude.

The person on the phone is *my* guest at *my* table. You are at *your*
table and are free to converse with *your* guests.

>
> >>> 2. Nosy people only get to listen in to half the conversation.
> >> You forgot the and.
> >>
> >> 2. Nosy people only got to listen in to half the conversation and people
> >> who don't give a shit about, and don't want to hear, what you have to say
> >> to begin with.
> >
> > Nope, no different than the same conversation with the person sitting
> > next to you.
>
> Except that there is a person there. It is nosey for the people nearby
> to make a conscious effort to eavesdrop on your conversation, but the
> fact is that most people talk so loud on a cell phone that the people
> next to them can't help but overhear, along with half the people in the
> restaurant.

Again, I have witnessed very few instances of people in a restaurant
talking loudly on a cell phone. I have witnessed far more instances of
someone darling hell spawn screaming at OSHA violating sound levels,
being allowed to run around tripping the waitstaff, jumping up and down
in the booth, tossing food onto the next table, etc. Ban children in
restaurants, not cell phones.

"Pete C." > wrote in news:4a3feed4$0$30276
:

> I for one never talk any louder on the phone than I do to people seated
> at my table. I also tend to eat out a fair amount from time to time, and
> have rarely observed anyone on a cell phone talking loudly either.

That may have been the case twenty years ago, from whence many of these
complaints arise back when cell phones were little more than glorified
walkie-talkies and one had to call out the alphabet, but nowadays, cell
phones are as clear as land lines.

I don't shout into a cell phone, no one I've seen take a call shouts into
their cell phone. Perhaps those who complain are living in a hard of
hearing zone.

--

Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest
of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest
good of everyone. - John Maynard Keynes