I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's worth an encore.


Real Meal Steals

Where Restaurants Getcha

Americans just love other people's cooking. A recent survey by the foodies at
Zagat's revealed that diners eat out an average of 3.4 times a week, spending
$25 each time. Sure, we pay more for the convenience and service, but exactly
how much more? When you find out, you might just lose your appetite.

By Dayana Yochim

Every morning on my way to work I see the head chef from a tony neighborhood
restaurant get out of her car with a small bag of groceries. From Giant. Plain
old Giant groceries. The same Giant where I buy my Cheerios, Wheat Thins, Brie,
and brillo pads.
From the shelves of my Giant to that night's dinner tab, the contents of that
bag are marked up by more than 300%.

There's no argument that the magic she works with those ingredients from the
local grocery store is a far cry from the concoctions*I create in my kitchen,
or, evidently, anything the rest of the nation is whipping up. According to
U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, the average household*spends about $2,000
dining out, and about $3,000 on home cooking each year. Retail sales at eating
establishments account for around 10% of total retail trade in the U.S.

We love other people's cooking. But everywhere from Chez Chi Chi to Chi-Chi's
to Chuck-E-Cheeze, diners are paying a premium to sit back and be served.

It's enough to kill your appetite.

Would you like $36 fries with that?

Love the lunch specials at your neighborhood deli? So does the proprietor. A
burger, can of Coke, and bag of chips may seem like a bargain at any price. But
between the buns there's a pretty fat markup.

Take that bag of plain potato chips. No one flinches at paying 60 cents for a
1-ounce bag. But would you put a $7-plus bag of the same stuff in your grocery
cart?*The actual price -- around $2.99 -- is what we expect to pay when we go
shopping. We pay more than three times the cost for a $2.35 burger and five
times more for a plain dog in a bun that we could nuke at home for just 36
cents.

Turn the corner and grab a snack at Mickey D's and the markups go through the
roof. There's a reason your server encourages you to super-size your meal. It
may be pocket change to you, but a few extra fries and a*shot of Coke adds just
pennies to McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) costs, a few dimes to your tab, and millions
to the company's profits.
According to Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation," an expose on the industry,
those frozen buds, at 30-cents a pound, emerge from the fryer and onto your
tray at a whopping $6 a pound. That $1.29 Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO) that so tastily
complements your fries contains just nine cents worth of syrup. (The golden
arches sells more Coke than anyone in the world.)

Yet, our appetite for fast food appears to be insatiable. In 1970, Americans
spent $6 billion on burgers and fries. By 2000, we were forking over $110
billion for fast food -- fattening the fast-food industry's bottom line, and
our own. Today nearly two-thirds of the population is overweight and one in
three of us is clinically obese. Fat Food Nation, indeed.

It's enough to make you order a salad. At least until you get the tab.

The math behind the marinade

There's a reason that veggie-based appetizers*dominate the menu. Salads and
side dishes are cash cows: Restaurant owners mark those up five to 10 times
what they paid. Most meals are marked up 300%, or four times the cost of
ingredients, meaning you'll pay $20 for pasta con frou frou or quiche l'orange
that cost the restaurant around $5 to make. A cut of meat, on the other hand,
is not a huge profit maker -- a $7 sirloin will go for just $10 or $15.

Little wonder constructing a menu is an exercise in behavioral economics.
Unless you're a really conscientious date, most diners tend to pass over the
cheapest entrée on the menu. Restaurateurs make the second- or
third-cheapest*on the menu the most profitable.
But when it comes to really raking it in, please peruse the wine list. Wine
is*liquid gold to restaurateurs: You pay three to four times*liquor-store
retail to imbibe. While not McDonald's-style markups, that $8 bottle of*so-so
merlot becomes a $32 splurge when the*cork comes out. (Wine by the glass can go
for $5 to $8. The math on that one can make even the most discerning palate
gag.)

On the coasts, brown bagging it (that is, bringing your own bottle of tipple to
enjoy with your meal) is becoming common. But don't bother packing a corkscrew
in your purse. Many restaurants that accommodate patrons who want to enjoy
their own vintage charge a corkage fee that can range from $10 to a heady $45.

In the restaurant's defense, running a decent joint is pricey. Costs include
rent, utilities, your friendly server, turnover, the bud vase, and gerbera
daisy on your table. A fine wine cellar can set a restaurateur back half a
million dollars. Hence, the corking fee.

When I worked at a sandwich shop in college, fountain soda was free for
workers. But if you were caught using a coated plastic cup with the company's
logo, you paid retail. The owner made a point of instructing us to use
Styrofoam cups instead. I pitied the co-worker caught using the good napkins to
clean up a spill.

Food, it turns out, is usually a restaurant's smallest expense.

Gorge and gouge

Before you make reservations, consider some of the tricks of the food trade
that can make your dining experience less appetizing.

"Convenience" fees: Corkage fees are one item not often listed on the menu.
Same goes for sharing charges. So if you and your dining date eat like birds,
ask about any extra costs for splitting an entrée.

Specials with "special" prices: Don't get stiffed when ordering the special of
the day. The cost is too often left out of the server's painstakingly detailed
description. Don't feel bad about asking. Each adjective can add a dollar or
more to the price. So be prepared.
Drink damage: Bottled or tap? You usually don't hear the latter offered at
nicer establishments. You can pay five dollars or more if you want your water
with fizz. And when it comes to ordering soda or coffee, don't assume that the
cup is bottomless. Shrewd proprietors pad the bill by charging you for every
swig.

Salad bar tricks: Swank sells. Putting a few pricey items on a salad bar helps
proprietors boast about the unusual offerings. It may sound enticing when
you're ordering, but many diners tend to leave the caviar and mangoes
untouched. Don't get taken in by a pretty package.

All-you-can-stomach brunches: A great way for restaurants to get rid of day-old
food is to have a prix-fixe brunch with last night's un-ordered entrees. Before
you dive in, survey the offerings and see if they are up-to-snuff.

Billing blunders: Finally, when the bill comes, be sure to check it for
accuracy whether you're at a fast-food chain or a white-tablecloth restaurant.
Boo boos happen -- intentional or not. If*something strikes you as questionable
-- about your meal or what it costs -- discuss it nicely with your server or
the manager. Remember, it's not your server setting prices (or cooking your
meal, for that matter), so it's bad form to shortchange him or her when it
comes to tipping.

If your meal -- or what you pay for it -- leaves you wanting, there's always
the corner Giant.*Apparently, what we eat out is made from the*same stuff they
sell there.

"TOM KAN PA" > wrote in message
...
> I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's worth an encore.
>

No, not really.

TOM KAN PA wrote:

> I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's worth an encore.
>

Right, just a newbie who posts without looking over the message base.
See the thread on Restaurants, latecomer.


jim

"JimLane" > wrote in message
...
> TOM KAN PA wrote:
>
> > I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's worth an encore.
> >
>
> Right, just a newbie who posts without looking over the message base.
> See the thread on Restaurants, latecomer.
>

You have to give him some credit. I believe it's his first post here that
doesn't mention Emeril.

>it's worth an encore.
>>

I think the point of the respondent's "no, not really" was that the post wasn't
worth an encore. For that matter, it wasn't worth being posted once.

So, another reporter thinks margins in the retail trade are shocking? What's
news there? Anyone who thinks restaurants don't have any overhead needs to
ramp up to reality in a hurry.

Neil

"WardNA" > wrote in message
...
> >it's worth an encore.
> >>
>
> I think the point of the respondent's "no, not really" was that the post
wasn't
> worth an encore. For that matter, it wasn't worth being posted once.
>
> So, another reporter thinks margins in the retail trade are shocking?
What's
> news there? Anyone who thinks restaurants don't have any overhead needs
to
> ramp up to reality in a hurry.
>
> Neil

Yes, that was my point. It wasn't worth posting again. I think that logic
is flawed. It would be like saying that air fare to Australia is outrageous
because jet fuel is only 89 cents a gallon. It ignores all the overhead
issues and the market demand for the product.

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Yes, that was my point. It wasn't worth posting again. I think that
logic
> is flawed. It would be like saying that air fare to Australia is
outrageous
> because jet fuel is only 89 cents a gallon. It ignores all the overhead
> issues and the market demand for the product.
>
You're so right. As a former restaurant owner this stuff really irritates
me. Most in the business are working their asses off, damn few are getting
rich and plenty are going broke.

"Anthony" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Vox Humana" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Yes, that was my point. It wasn't worth posting again. I think that
> logic
> > is flawed. It would be like saying that air fare to Australia is
> outrageous
> > because jet fuel is only 89 cents a gallon. It ignores all the overhead
> > issues and the market demand for the product.
> >
> You're so right. As a former restaurant owner this stuff really irritates
> me. Most in the business are working their asses off, damn few are
getting
> rich and plenty are going broke.

I know a couple who own a successful restaurant. It's not a job, it's a
lifestyle. They spend nearly all their waking hours at work. Restaurants
are complex businesses with lots of expenses and lots of risk. I'm sure
that most don't last more than a few months.

I'd be interested in the cost of hiring someone to make a meal in your
home. The food itself wouldn't be marked up at all. A chef or team of
chefs would do the grocery shopping, bring it to the client's home,
cook, serve and clean. They'd be paid by the hour. How would that
compare to the cost eating out? My bet is that it would be still more
expensive.

I'm not sure what the point is of noticing that food costs more when
someone else provides the labor and the dining room. Are they supposed
to be free?

I have a few friends who eat out all the time. One guy in particular is
a nice guy but terribly irresponsible with money. Every morning, he
goes to a restaurant for breakfast and gets coffee, toast, eggs. He'd
never consider buying a coffee maker and the fixings for his own
breakfast that could be put together with a minumum of skill and effort.
I think he'd be better off saving the money he spends on breakfast,
but, good friends though we are, I would never tell him. I'm sure he
knows and doesn't want to hear it.

One of our news stations here did something on this subject just the
other night. They compared eating out to cooking at home in 3 price
ranges-- a fancy dinner, a mid-range and a Boston Market. (Do I have
that name right? The fast food barbecue chicken.) In each case, the
couple got the restaurant meal once, then shopped and recreated it at
home. The news team did the math on how much the restaurant meal cost
with tax and tip compared to the cost of the groceries. To no one's
surprise, the fancier meals had the highest mark-ups. They then showed
the kitchen after the meal with every pot in the house dirty and got the
couple to say that it took them hours to prepare. The Boston Chicken
cost very little more than the ingredients for the same meal at the
supermarket.

--Lia

Well, this might be a bit of a troll, but I'll bite.

This has to be one of the most inane things I've ever read. As if we
didn't know that restaurants are expensive? That McDonald's marks up a
ton of their food? Sheesh, whoever wrote this (be it a troll or
not...but i'll bet it was probably a freelancer who sold it to some
dumb editor at a small 'zine) should win the nobel prize for econ.
The restaurant biz is one of the hardest, most difficult industries to
suceed in. Margins are very VERY slim, with McDonalds and their
cohorts boasting 8%. And you KNOW McDabbys is more efficient than your
neighborhood restaurant, so what do you think their margins are? About
as this as Thursdays tagliatelle.

I go to *good* restaurants, albeit infrequently. I firmly believe I
can prepare food much better than the guy deep frying things at
Applebees (which has to be the worst restaurnat i've ever had the
misfortune to eat at). Can I prepare food as well as even the worst
sous chef at Chez Panisse? Hell no. I pay for their creativity and
culinary artistry. And I don't mind doing it.

c (TOM KAN PA) wrote in message >...
> I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's worth an encore.
>
>
> Real Meal Steals
>
> Where Restaurants Getcha
>
> Americans just love other people's cooking. A recent survey by the foodies at
> Zagat's revealed that diners eat out an average of 3.4 times a week, spending
> $25 each time. Sure, we pay more for the convenience and service, but exactly
> how much more? When you find out, you might just lose your appetite.
>
> By Dayana Yochim
>
> Every morning on my way to work I see the head chef from a tony neighborhood
> restaurant get out of her car with a small bag of groceries. From Giant. Plain
> old Giant groceries. The same Giant where I buy my Cheerios, Wheat Thins, Brie,
> and brillo pads.
> From the shelves of my Giant to that night's dinner tab, the contents of that
> bag are marked up by more than 300%.
>
> There's no argument that the magic she works with those ingredients from the
> local grocery store is a far cry from the concoctions*I create in my kitchen,
> or, evidently, anything the rest of the nation is whipping up. According to
> U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, the average household*spends about $2,000
> dining out, and about $3,000 on home cooking each year. Retail sales at eating
> establishments account for around 10% of total retail trade in the U.S.
>
> We love other people's cooking. But everywhere from Chez Chi Chi to Chi-Chi's
> to Chuck-E-Cheeze, diners are paying a premium to sit back and be served.
>
> It's enough to kill your appetite.
>
> Would you like $36 fries with that?
>
> Love the lunch specials at your neighborhood deli? So does the proprietor. A
> burger, can of Coke, and bag of chips may seem like a bargain at any price. But
> between the buns there's a pretty fat markup.
>
> Take that bag of plain potato chips. No one flinches at paying 60 cents for a
> 1-ounce bag. But would you put a $7-plus bag of the same stuff in your grocery
> cart?*The actual price -- around $2.99 -- is what we expect to pay when we go
> shopping. We pay more than three times the cost for a $2.35 burger and five
> times more for a plain dog in a bun that we could nuke at home for just 36
> cents.
>
> Turn the corner and grab a snack at Mickey D's and the markups go through the
> roof. There's a reason your server encourages you to super-size your meal. It
> may be pocket change to you, but a few extra fries and a*shot of Coke adds just
> pennies to McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) costs, a few dimes to your tab, and millions
> to the company's profits.
> According to Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation," an expose on the industry,
> those frozen buds, at 30-cents a pound, emerge from the fryer and onto your
> tray at a whopping $6 a pound. That $1.29 Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO) that so tastily
> complements your fries contains just nine cents worth of syrup. (The golden
> arches sells more Coke than anyone in the world.)
>
> Yet, our appetite for fast food appears to be insatiable. In 1970, Americans
> spent $6 billion on burgers and fries. By 2000, we were forking over $110
> billion for fast food -- fattening the fast-food industry's bottom line, and
> our own. Today nearly two-thirds of the population is overweight and one in
> three of us is clinically obese. Fat Food Nation, indeed.
>
> It's enough to make you order a salad. At least until you get the tab.
>
> The math behind the marinade
>
> There's a reason that veggie-based appetizers*dominate the menu. Salads and
> side dishes are cash cows: Restaurant owners mark those up five to 10 times
> what they paid. Most meals are marked up 300%, or four times the cost of
> ingredients, meaning you'll pay $20 for pasta con frou frou or quiche l'orange
> that cost the restaurant around $5 to make. A cut of meat, on the other hand,
> is not a huge profit maker -- a $7 sirloin will go for just $10 or $15.
>
> Little wonder constructing a menu is an exercise in behavioral economics.
> Unless you're a really conscientious date, most diners tend to pass over the
> cheapest entrée on the menu. Restaurateurs make the second- or
> third-cheapest*on the menu the most profitable.
> But when it comes to really raking it in, please peruse the wine list. Wine
> is*liquid gold to restaurateurs: You pay three to four times*liquor-store
> retail to imbibe. While not McDonald's-style markups, that $8 bottle of*so-so
> merlot becomes a $32 splurge when the*cork comes out. (Wine by the glass can go
> for $5 to $8. The math on that one can make even the most discerning palate
> gag.)
>
> On the coasts, brown bagging it (that is, bringing your own bottle of tipple to
> enjoy with your meal) is becoming common. But don't bother packing a corkscrew
> in your purse. Many restaurants that accommodate patrons who want to enjoy
> their own vintage charge a corkage fee that can range from $10 to a heady $45.
>
> In the restaurant's defense, running a decent joint is pricey. Costs include
> rent, utilities, your friendly server, turnover, the bud vase, and gerbera
> daisy on your table. A fine wine cellar can set a restaurateur back half a
> million dollars. Hence, the corking fee.
>
> When I worked at a sandwich shop in college, fountain soda was free for
> workers. But if you were caught using a coated plastic cup with the company's
> logo, you paid retail. The owner made a point of instructing us to use
> Styrofoam cups instead. I pitied the co-worker caught using the good napkins to
> clean up a spill.
>
> Food, it turns out, is usually a restaurant's smallest expense.
>
> Gorge and gouge
>
> Before you make reservations, consider some of the tricks of the food trade
> that can make your dining experience less appetizing.
>
> "Convenience" fees: Corkage fees are one item not often listed on the menu.
> Same goes for sharing charges. So if you and your dining date eat like birds,
> ask about any extra costs for splitting an entrée.
>
> Specials with "special" prices: Don't get stiffed when ordering the special of
> the day. The cost is too often left out of the server's painstakingly detailed
> description. Don't feel bad about asking. Each adjective can add a dollar or
> more to the price. So be prepared.
> Drink damage: Bottled or tap? You usually don't hear the latter offered at
> nicer establishments. You can pay five dollars or more if you want your water
> with fizz. And when it comes to ordering soda or coffee, don't assume that the
> cup is bottomless. Shrewd proprietors pad the bill by charging you for every
> swig.
>
> Salad bar tricks: Swank sells. Putting a few pricey items on a salad bar helps
> proprietors boast about the unusual offerings. It may sound enticing when
> you're ordering, but many diners tend to leave the caviar and mangoes
> untouched. Don't get taken in by a pretty package.
>
> All-you-can-stomach brunches: A great way for restaurants to get rid of day-old
> food is to have a prix-fixe brunch with last night's un-ordered entrees. Before
> you dive in, survey the offerings and see if they are up-to-snuff.
>
> Billing blunders: Finally, when the bill comes, be sure to check it for
> accuracy whether you're at a fast-food chain or a white-tablecloth restaurant.
> Boo boos happen -- intentional or not. If*something strikes you as questionable
> -- about your meal or what it costs -- discuss it nicely with your server or
> the manager. Remember, it's not your server setting prices (or cooking your
> meal, for that matter), so it's bad form to shortchange him or her when it
> comes to tipping.
>
> If your meal -- or what you pay for it -- leaves you wanting, there's always
> the corner Giant.*Apparently, what we eat out is made from the*same stuff they
> sell there.

c (TOM KAN PA) wrote in
:

> Brie, and brillo pads.

I dunno...where I come from, you don't buy Brie from a brillo pad
store. If she'd said Merkin cheese, I might believe it, but is Brie
that common? Oh, wait...yes, it is...that's why I don't like it! :-)

--
"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

TOM KAN PA > wrote:
>I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's worth an encore.
>
>
>Real Meal Steals

Yes.

You *are* paying for service.

You compress a multi-hour process (purchase, storage, prep,
cooking, serving, cleaning) to a few minutes, and then you
get thanked for eating it!

Having someone else do the cooking, unless you're really
into it as a hobby, is one of the greatest timesavers
on Earth, as it allows most people an extra 3-20 hours
a day to do anything else (like make money to pay the
proprietor).

On the other hand, what the article really means is,
IT'S DIRT CHEAP TO EAT REALLY WELL AT HOME, if you have
the time, the skill, and you love to play with dangerous
substances and toys.

--Blair
"Kid's probably been in the room with
raw chicken and dull knives every day
of his life, but let his pa take him
in the pen with ONE BLEEDIN' CROC and
the whole world goes buggy."

"Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
news:vrJKb.240581$8y1.1092323@attbi_s52...
> I'd be interested in the cost of hiring someone to make a meal in your
> home. The food itself wouldn't be marked up at all. A chef or team of
> chefs would do the grocery shopping, bring it to the client's home,
> cook, serve and clean. They'd be paid by the hour. How would that
> compare to the cost eating out? My bet is that it would be still more
> expensive.
>
I know of one chef service in my area, Southern Maine, a meal for two with
clean up et cetera is $200. I'd rather go out to dinner and not have
someone else in my kitchen.

Jessica

On 07 Jan 2004 00:56:54 GMT, (WardNA) wrote:

> >it's worth an encore.
> >>
>
> I think the point of the respondent's "no, not really" was that the post wasn't
> worth an encore. For that matter, it wasn't worth being posted once.
>
> So, another reporter thinks margins in the retail trade are shocking? What's
> news there? Anyone who thinks restaurants don't have any overhead needs to
> ramp up to reality in a hurry.
>
My view on it is this - Time is money (we're paying others
to do our cooking for us) and often we are paying for
something we don't or can't make at home.

If we choose to pay retail, we are paying for time,
atmosphere and service.


Practice safe eating - always use condiments

Dining out is a leisurely preference for the most part. It is a chance
to focus on the people you are dining with; or to grab a bite on the run
because time is of the essence. It can be an adventure; a way of
exploring the culture of a new-found environment. What is more romantic
than sitting across the table from someone who stirs your basic
instincts and inspires you to communicate? All the while indulging
yourself in another fold of your appetite? Why is food and its
procurement such an attraction? Because is a passion! An exquisite
pleasure, whether you are doing the service, or being serviced! Good
food is," To die for!," adequately speaks of the total endeavor.......

Just a Jeanie

In article >,
(WardNA) wrote:

> >it's worth an encore.
> >>
>
> I think the point of the respondent's "no, not really" was that the post
> wasn't
> worth an encore. For that matter, it wasn't worth being posted once.
>
> So, another reporter thinks margins in the retail trade are shocking? What's
> news there? Anyone who thinks restaurants don't have any overhead needs to
> ramp up to reality in a hurry.
>
> Neil

Funny, I was thinking the same thing when I read that.

The actual, original cost of ingredients would be the LEAST expensive
part of running a food establishment of ANY kind! Fast food or otherwise.

K.

--
>,,<Cat's Haven Hobby >,,<
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...user id=katra

I did a find for "Restaurant" and "Restaurants" and didn't find it.

So thanks for posting it -- even tho it must be a misdemeanor to be a
newbie on this list.
Dee



"Vox Humana" > wrote in message
...
>
> "JimLane" > wrote in message
> ...
> > TOM KAN PA wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's worth an encore.
> > >
> >
> > Right, just a newbie who posts without looking over the message base.
> > See the thread on Restaurants, latecomer.
> >
>
> You have to give him some credit. I believe it's his first post here that
> doesn't mention Emeril.
>
>

I see that posting your article has raised a lot of rancor. Very curious.
It seems like it is something that most everyone knows, but what's the harm
in it.

Dee





"TOM KAN PA" > wrote in message
...
> I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's worth an encore.
>
>
> Real Meal Steals
>
> Where Restaurants Getcha
>
> Americans just love other people's cooking. A recent survey by the foodies
at
> Zagat's revealed that diners eat out an average of 3.4 times a week,
spending
> $25 each time. Sure, we pay more for the convenience and service, but
exactly
> how much more? When you find out, you might just lose your appetite.
>
> By Dayana Yochim
>
> Every morning on my way to work I see the head chef from a tony
neighborhood
> restaurant get out of her car with a small bag of groceries. From Giant.
Plain
> old Giant groceries. The same Giant where I buy my Cheerios, Wheat Thins,
Brie,
> and brillo pads.
> From the shelves of my Giant to that night's dinner tab, the contents of
that
> bag are marked up by more than 300%.
>
> There's no argument that the magic she works with those ingredients from
the
> local grocery store is a far cry from the concoctions I create in my
kitchen,
> or, evidently, anything the rest of the nation is whipping up. According
to
> U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, the average household spends about $2,000
> dining out, and about $3,000 on home cooking each year. Retail sales at
eating
> establishments account for around 10% of total retail trade in the U.S.
>
> We love other people's cooking. But everywhere from Chez Chi Chi to
Chi-Chi's
> to Chuck-E-Cheeze, diners are paying a premium to sit back and be served.
>
> It's enough to kill your appetite.
>
> Would you like $36 fries with that?
>
> Love the lunch specials at your neighborhood deli? So does the proprietor.
A
> burger, can of Coke, and bag of chips may seem like a bargain at any
price. But
> between the buns there's a pretty fat markup.
>
> Take that bag of plain potato chips. No one flinches at paying 60 cents
for a
> 1-ounce bag. But would you put a $7-plus bag of the same stuff in your
grocery
> cart? The actual price -- around $2.99 -- is what we expect to pay when we
go
> shopping. We pay more than three times the cost for a $2.35 burger and
five
> times more for a plain dog in a bun that we could nuke at home for just 36
> cents.
>
> Turn the corner and grab a snack at Mickey D's and the markups go through
the
> roof. There's a reason your server encourages you to super-size your meal.
It
> may be pocket change to you, but a few extra fries and a shot of Coke adds
just
> pennies to McDonald's (NYSE: MCD) costs, a few dimes to your tab, and
millions
> to the company's profits.
> According to Eric Schlosser's "Fast Food Nation," an expose on the
industry,
> those frozen buds, at 30-cents a pound, emerge from the fryer and onto
your
> tray at a whopping $6 a pound. That $1.29 Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO) that so
tastily
> complements your fries contains just nine cents worth of syrup. (The
golden
> arches sells more Coke than anyone in the world.)
>
> Yet, our appetite for fast food appears to be insatiable. In 1970,
Americans
> spent $6 billion on burgers and fries. By 2000, we were forking over $110
> billion for fast food -- fattening the fast-food industry's bottom line,
and
> our own. Today nearly two-thirds of the population is overweight and one
in
> three of us is clinically obese. Fat Food Nation, indeed.
>
> It's enough to make you order a salad. At least until you get the tab.
>
> The math behind the marinade
>
> There's a reason that veggie-based appetizers dominate the menu. Salads
and
> side dishes are cash cows: Restaurant owners mark those up five to 10
times
> what they paid. Most meals are marked up 300%, or four times the cost of
> ingredients, meaning you'll pay $20 for pasta con frou frou or quiche
l'orange
> that cost the restaurant around $5 to make. A cut of meat, on the other
hand,
> is not a huge profit maker -- a $7 sirloin will go for just $10 or $15.
>
> Little wonder constructing a menu is an exercise in behavioral economics.
> Unless you're a really conscientious date, most diners tend to pass over
the
> cheapest entrée on the menu. Restaurateurs make the second- or
> third-cheapest on the menu the most profitable.
> But when it comes to really raking it in, please peruse the wine list.
Wine
> is liquid gold to restaurateurs: You pay three to four times liquor-store
> retail to imbibe. While not McDonald's-style markups, that $8 bottle of
so-so
> merlot becomes a $32 splurge when the cork comes out. (Wine by the glass
can go
> for $5 to $8. The math on that one can make even the most discerning
palate
> gag.)
>
> On the coasts, brown bagging it (that is, bringing your own bottle of
tipple to
> enjoy with your meal) is becoming common. But don't bother packing a
corkscrew
> in your purse. Many restaurants that accommodate patrons who want to enjoy
> their own vintage charge a corkage fee that can range from $10 to a heady
$45.
>
> In the restaurant's defense, running a decent joint is pricey. Costs
include
> rent, utilities, your friendly server, turnover, the bud vase, and gerbera
> daisy on your table. A fine wine cellar can set a restaurateur back half a
> million dollars. Hence, the corking fee.
>
> When I worked at a sandwich shop in college, fountain soda was free for
> workers. But if you were caught using a coated plastic cup with the
company's
> logo, you paid retail. The owner made a point of instructing us to use
> Styrofoam cups instead. I pitied the co-worker caught using the good
napkins to
> clean up a spill.
>
> Food, it turns out, is usually a restaurant's smallest expense.
>
> Gorge and gouge
>
> Before you make reservations, consider some of the tricks of the food
trade
> that can make your dining experience less appetizing.
>
> "Convenience" fees: Corkage fees are one item not often listed on the
menu.
> Same goes for sharing charges. So if you and your dining date eat like
birds,
> ask about any extra costs for splitting an entrée.
>
> Specials with "special" prices: Don't get stiffed when ordering the
special of
> the day. The cost is too often left out of the server's painstakingly
detailed
> description. Don't feel bad about asking. Each adjective can add a dollar
or
> more to the price. So be prepared.
> Drink damage: Bottled or tap? You usually don't hear the latter offered at
> nicer establishments. You can pay five dollars or more if you want your
water
> with fizz. And when it comes to ordering soda or coffee, don't assume that
the
> cup is bottomless. Shrewd proprietors pad the bill by charging you for
every
> swig.
>
> Salad bar tricks: Swank sells. Putting a few pricey items on a salad bar
helps
> proprietors boast about the unusual offerings. It may sound enticing when
> you're ordering, but many diners tend to leave the caviar and mangoes
> untouched. Don't get taken in by a pretty package.
>
> All-you-can-stomach brunches: A great way for restaurants to get rid of
day-old
> food is to have a prix-fixe brunch with last night's un-ordered entrees.
Before
> you dive in, survey the offerings and see if they are up-to-snuff.
>
> Billing blunders: Finally, when the bill comes, be sure to check it for
> accuracy whether you're at a fast-food chain or a white-tablecloth
restaurant.
> Boo boos happen -- intentional or not. If something strikes you as
questionable
> -- about your meal or what it costs -- discuss it nicely with your server
or
> the manager. Remember, it's not your server setting prices (or cooking
your
> meal, for that matter), so it's bad form to shortchange him or her when it
> comes to tipping.
>
> If your meal -- or what you pay for it -- leaves you wanting, there's
always
> the corner Giant. Apparently, what we eat out is made from the same stuff
they
> sell there.
>
>

This leads to an interesting tangent.

Is there anyone who loves to cook, considers himself (or herself) good
at it, loves to try new recipes at home and to entertain who DOESN"T
also eat out a lot?

I know people who almost never eat out. Their meals at home are the
same plain food year after year. When they do eat out, it is to get
someone else to do the preparation and clean-up, not to try something
new or to eat something they'd never eat at home.

I know people who hate to cook at home. They eat out all the time, but
they always order relatively plain, non-adventurous food.

I don't know anyone who loves to cook and is adventurous with home
cooking who doesn't also eat at restaurants.

--Lia

Dee Randall wrote:
> I see that posting your article has raised a lot of rancor. Very curious.
> It seems like it is something that most everyone knows, but what's the harm
> in it?


The article implies that restaurant owners are taking unfair advantage
by jacking up the price of food to dizzying heights. The article futher
implies that consumers shouldn't eat out if they want to save money and
keep from being robbed by those unscrupulous restaurant owners.


The article doesn't say any of that outright, but the implication is
there. How else would you interpret "It's enough to kill your appetite.
Would you like $36 fries with that? Love the lunch specials at your
neighborhood deli? So does the proprietor."


The implied half-truths don't stop there. Fast food and fine dining are
lumped together as though they were the same thing. Numbers, prices and
statistics are used to make the article sound scientific when it isn't.


The obvious is presented as news. Of course food is food which can be
bought at the supermarket or any number of other places.


All that is enough to raise my ire. I see nothing curious about it.

--Lia

"Vox Humana" > wrote in message >...
> "JimLane" > wrote in message
> ...
> > TOM KAN PA wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's worth an encore.
> > >
> >
> > Right, just a newbie who posts without looking over the message base.
> > See the thread on Restaurants, latecomer.
> >
>
> You have to give him some credit. I believe it's his first post here that
> doesn't mention Emeril.

Emeril is out in 2004. Tom is searching for a new object of obsession.

-bwg

"Dee Randall" > wrote in message
...
> I did a find for "Restaurant" and "Restaurants" and didn't find it.
>
> So thanks for posting it -- even tho it must be a misdemeanor to be a
> newbie on this list.
> Dee

First, it's not a list, this is a newsgroup. Also, Tom isn't really a
newbie. He just posts a lot crap to Usenet and never really contributes
anything. Apparently he doesn't have access to Google and relies on others
to solve the most simple problems. Oh, and if you say something about him
that he doesn't like, you can expect an email protesting your statement.
Finally, while it isn't a misdemeanor to top post, it is contrary to the
conventions of posting to Usenet. Top posting may have its appeal but when
everyone posts in a uniform manner, it makes communicating easier -- just
like when everyone drives in the same direction in a highway lane.







>
>
> "Vox Humana" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "JimLane" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > TOM KAN PA wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's worth an encore.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Right, just a newbie who posts without looking over the message base.
> > > See the thread on Restaurants, latecomer.
> > >
> >
> > You have to give him some credit. I believe it's his first post here
that
> > doesn't mention Emeril.
> >
> >
>
>

"Dee Randall" > wrote in
:

> I see that posting your article has raised a lot of rancor. Very
> curious. It seems like it is something that most everyone knows,
> but what's the harm in it.

This is rec.food.cooking. Nothing gets by the knee-jerk reactionaries
:-)

--

"I'm the master of low expectations."

GWB, aboard Air Force One, 04Jun2003

"Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
news:%2XKb.81639$I07.407646@attbi_s53...
> This leads to an interesting tangent.
>
> Is there anyone who loves to cook, considers himself (or herself) good
> at it, loves to try new recipes at home and to entertain who DOESN"T
> also eat out a lot?
>
> I know people who almost never eat out. Their meals at home are the
> same plain food year after year. When they do eat out, it is to get
> someone else to do the preparation and clean-up, not to try something
> new or to eat something they'd never eat at home.
>
> I know people who hate to cook at home. They eat out all the time, but
> they always order relatively plain, non-adventurous food.
>
> I don't know anyone who loves to cook and is adventurous with home
> cooking who doesn't also eat at restaurants.
>
> --Lia
>

Well, you know one now - me! I do eat at restaurants a few times a month,
but that's all (Not counting when I am forced to due to travel or whatever).
Why is this? To be honest, my home cooking is better than 99% of the
restaurants around here, and the few that are better are all very expensive.
We do go to an inexpensive and very good Mexican place regularly because I
have never gained much skill with that cuisine. Plus, I enjoy cooking. For
the cost of a modest restaurant meal for 2 ($20-30) I can buy top-notch
ingredients and make a really excellent meal - so why go out? I am an
adventursome cook so there's no lack of variety - a week might see French,
Thai, Spanish, Chinese, and Indian dinners. Admittedly if I lived in NY City
rather than Chapel Hill, North Carolina I would have a different attitude!


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
news:7lXKb.150873$VB2.580785@attbi_s51...
> Dee Randall wrote:
> > I see that posting your article has raised a lot of rancor. Very
curious.
> > It seems like it is something that most everyone knows, but what's the
harm
> > in it?
>
>
> The article implies that restaurant owners are taking unfair advantage
> by jacking up the price of food to dizzying heights. The article futher
> implies that consumers shouldn't eat out if they want to save money and
> keep from being robbed by those unscrupulous restaurant owners.
>
>
> The article doesn't say any of that outright, but the implication is
> there. How else would you interpret "It's enough to kill your appetite.
> Would you like $36 fries with that? Love the lunch specials at your
> neighborhood deli? So does the proprietor."
>
>
> The implied half-truths don't stop there. Fast food and fine dining are
> lumped together as though they were the same thing. Numbers, prices and
> statistics are used to make the article sound scientific when it isn't.
>
>
> The obvious is presented as news. Of course food is food which can be
> bought at the supermarket or any number of other places.
>
>
> All that is enough to raise my ire. I see nothing curious about it.
>
> --Lia
>
>

You might want to look up the difference between "imply" and "infer."


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
news:%2XKb.81639$I07.407646@attbi_s53...
: This leads to an interesting tangent.
:
: Is there anyone who loves to cook, considers himself (or
herself) good
: at it, loves to try new recipes at home and to entertain who
DOESN"T
: also eat out a lot?
:
: I know people who almost never eat out. Their meals at home
are the
: same plain food year after year. When they do eat out, it is
to get
: someone else to do the preparation and clean-up, not to try
something
: new or to eat something they'd never eat at home.
:
: I know people who hate to cook at home. They eat out all the
time, but
: they always order relatively plain, non-adventurous food.
:
: I don't know anyone who loves to cook and is adventurous with
home
: cooking who doesn't also eat at restaurants.
:
: --Lia
: =========

Welllllllllllllll, you know one now! I/we rarely eat out.
Especially since there aren't that many restaurants near us. On
top of that, most of the restaurants that we have been too
weren't very impressive - I haven't been anywhere yet that I
wasn't able to do at least as good as and usually far better! My
chief complaints about the restaurants in Armpit, Illinois are
that most of them have no idea how to season foods properly
(they're either over or under seasoned - very, very rarely are
the seasonings balanced) and it's hard to find any creativity.

Therefore, I subscribe to this and a.c.c. news groups and play
with recipes from my various cookbooks. I consider myself a
better than average cook. I feel I used to be better because I
don't cook like I used to (in terms of frequency and quantity)
but am considered "gourmet" by friends and family.

If having a lot of step/mothers and/or women figures, while
growing up, is considered a good thing... LOL... I was given the
opportunity to be introduced to various cooking styles and
palates. One cooked great breakfasts but needed box-type and
canned goods for most other meals. One cooked traditional
Southern (USA) meals. Her fried okra ROCKED! Another cooked
trendy foods, one cooked Midwest and southwest style and the last
one did "down home cooking" that was/is TREMENDOUS! Oh my stars
can Martha cook!! She, BTW, is the owner/founder of "Everglades"
seasonings, in Florida.

So, the answer to the unspoken question is, I rarely eat out
because I can do as good or better than what's available and I
could do it more affordably.


--
Cyndi
<Remove a "b" to reply>

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
r.com...
: "Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
: news:%2XKb.81639$I07.407646@attbi_s53...
: > This leads to an interesting tangent.
: >
: > Is there anyone who loves to cook, considers himself (or
herself) good
: > at it, loves to try new recipes at home and to entertain who
DOESN"T
: > also eat out a lot?
: : >snip<
: > --Lia
: >
:
: Well, you know one now - me! I do eat at restaurants a few
times a month,
: but that's all (Not counting when I am forced to due to travel
or whatever).
: Why is this? To be honest, my home cooking is better than 99%
of the
: restaurants around here, and the few that are better are all
very expensive.
: We do go to an inexpensive and very good Mexican place
regularly because I
: have never gained much skill with that cuisine. Plus, I enjoy
cooking. For
: the cost of a modest restaurant meal for 2 ($20-30) I can buy
top-notch
: ingredients and make a really excellent meal - so why go out? I
am an
: adventursome cook so there's no lack of variety - a week might
see French,
: Thai, Spanish, Chinese, and Indian dinners. Admittedly if I
lived in NY City
: rather than Chapel Hill, North Carolina I would have a
different attitude!
:
:
: --
: Peter Aitken
====

Oh my gosh Peter - that's so funny... after just posting my
response I read yours... they're almost word for word! LOL Okay,
well, there are quite a few different words but the sentiments
are the same. Whereas you go out a couple of times a month - I
go out a couple of times a year... but other than that - same
ideas.

Cyndi
<Remove a "b" to reply>

On Wed, 7 Jan 2004, Vox Humana wrote:

>
> "Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
> news:%2XKb.81639$I07.407646@attbi_s53...
> > This leads to an interesting tangent.
> >
> > Is there anyone who loves to cook, considers himself (or herself) good
> > at it, loves to try new recipes at home and to entertain who DOESN"T
> > also eat out a lot?
> >
>
> I would be one of those people. I think I got burned-out on restaurant
> meals a few years ago. We both had demanding jobs, sometimes working six
> days a week and an evening or two here and there. We were eating nearly all
> our meals out. I even had an account at one restaurant and they would bill
> me once a month! Once things slowed down I found that eating at home was
> more enjoyable. The food was better and cost less. It took less time
> because I didn't have to drive to restaurant, wait for a table, wait for the
> waiter to take a drink order, wait for the waiter to take the food order,
> wait for the food, wait for the dessert menu, wait for the dessert to come,
> wait for a coffee refill, wait for the check, wait for the valet to bring
> the car, and then drive home. It was a false economy on several levels I
> don't think I was being over-charged however. Now we eat out only on
> weekends and sometimes I remember why we don't eat out so often when I find
> myself in a restaurant with crying children and cigarette smoke wafting
> across my table. I don't want to be critical of people with children, but
> it seems that young people with families are eating out frequently at late
> hours with small children. The parents look exhausted and seem to have
> abandoned any effort to rein-in the kids. Consequently there are 7 year old
> kids playing tag in restaurants at 9:45 PM - an hour that I would have been
> in bed when I was that age. I understand why parents do this I understand
> why restaurant operators don't say anything. However it is a deal breaker
> for me and makes eating out less enjoyable.

9:45 is early for dinner. I remember seeing fiveyearolds out at midnight,
playing games.

Lena

"Julia Altshuler" > wrote in message
news:%2XKb.81639$I07.407646@attbi_s53...
> This leads to an interesting tangent.
>
> Is there anyone who loves to cook, considers himself (or herself) good
> at it, loves to try new recipes at home and to entertain who DOESN"T
> also eat out a lot?
>

I would be one of those people. I think I got burned-out on restaurant
meals a few years ago. We both had demanding jobs, sometimes working six
days a week and an evening or two here and there. We were eating nearly all
our meals out. I even had an account at one restaurant and they would bill
me once a month! Once things slowed down I found that eating at home was
more enjoyable. The food was better and cost less. It took less time
because I didn't have to drive to restaurant, wait for a table, wait for the
waiter to take a drink order, wait for the waiter to take the food order,
wait for the food, wait for the dessert menu, wait for the dessert to come,
wait for a coffee refill, wait for the check, wait for the valet to bring
the car, and then drive home. It was a false economy on several levels I
don't think I was being over-charged however. Now we eat out only on
weekends and sometimes I remember why we don't eat out so often when I find
myself in a restaurant with crying children and cigarette smoke wafting
across my table. I don't want to be critical of people with children, but
it seems that young people with families are eating out frequently at late
hours with small children. The parents look exhausted and seem to have
abandoned any effort to rein-in the kids. Consequently there are 7 year old
kids playing tag in restaurants at 9:45 PM - an hour that I would have been
in bed when I was that age. I understand why parents do this I understand
why restaurant operators don't say anything. However it is a deal breaker
for me and makes eating out less enjoyable.

Julia Altshuler > asked tangentially in message
news:%2XKb.81639$I07.407646@attbi_s53...
> Is there anyone who loves to cook, considers himself (or herself)
> good at it, loves to try new recipes at home and to entertain who
> DOESN'T also eat out a lot?
> [snip]

That would be us, too.

SWMBO is a darned-fined cook and an excellent baker, has specific
specialties that she can whip out without batting an eye, and a discipline
for following recipes down to the letter. She doesn't do improv cooking,
though, and only strays from her specials if I request it.

I, OTOH, will try new recipes and new foods without worry. Some work well
(Shaker Lemon Pie, Scalloped Onions, Leeks and Shallots) while others fall
way short (urchin <shudder>). I am also very good at pairing herbs and
spices without killing the food and tend not to follow recipes as truly.

As a result of our joined love of cooking, we've cut way back on our
restaurant travails.

The Ranger

"Dee Randall" > wrote in message
...
> I did a find for "Restaurant" and "Restaurants" and didn't find it.
>
> So thanks for posting it -- even tho it must be a misdemeanor to be a
newbie on this list.
> Dee

> "Vox Humana" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "JimLane" > wrote in message
> > ... TOM KAN PA wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's worth an encore.
> > >
> > > Right, just a newbie who posts without looking over the message base.
> > > See the thread on Restaurants, latecomer.
> > >
> >
> > You have to give him some credit. I believe it's his first post here
that doesn't mention Emeril.


Speaking of eating out..... that reminds me of a restaurant I went to once
called "Rude Food'.

Raelene
xxx




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.559 / Virus Database: 351 - Release Date: 7/01/04

Julia Altshuler saw Sally selling seashells by the seashore and told
us all about it on Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:09:15 GMT:

>This leads to an interesting tangent.
>
>Is there anyone who loves to cook, considers himself (or herself) good
>at it, loves to try new recipes at home and to entertain who DOESN"T
>also eat out a lot?
>
>I know people who almost never eat out. Their meals at home are the
>same plain food year after year. When they do eat out, it is to get
>someone else to do the preparation and clean-up, not to try something
>new or to eat something they'd never eat at home.
>
>I know people who hate to cook at home. They eat out all the time, but
>they always order relatively plain, non-adventurous food.
>
>I don't know anyone who loves to cook and is adventurous with home
>cooking who doesn't also eat at restaurants.

We don't... because we can't afford it Restaurant food IS expensive
- that's to be expected. Most of the time it's worth the price, but
when it's not it's very disappointing.

We eat plenty good at home too... maybe not caviar and lobster, but I
enjoy cooking and my brother is a master in the kitchen. He says 'why
go out to pay for something that I can make better at home?'

~Karen AKA Kajikit

Nobody outstubborns a cat...

Visit my webpage: http://www.kajikitscorner.com
Allergyfree Eating Recipe Swap: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Allergyfree_Eating
Ample Aussies Mailing List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ampleaussies/

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:09:15 +0000, Julia Altshuler wrote:
> Is there anyone who loves to cook, considers himself (or herself) good at
> it, loves to try new recipes at home and to entertain who DOESN"T also eat
> out a lot?

Us.

> I know people who almost never eat out. Their meals at home are the same
> plain food year after year. When they do eat out, it is to get someone
> else to do the preparation and clean-up, not to try something new or to
> eat something they'd never eat at home.

> I know people who hate to cook at home. They eat out all the time, but
> they always order relatively plain, non-adventurous food.

> I don't know anyone who loves to cook and is adventurous with home cooking
> who doesn't also eat at restaurants.

Before lowcarbing, we'd order in pizza twice a year neither of us felt
like cooking, and we'd try likely new restaurants once or twice a year,
when we spotted them. Usually, the food is disappointing; were there
more really good restaurants nearby (east side Vancouver, Washington)
we'd maybe eat out more. Maybe not; restaurants charge too much for
cheap wine, don't let us show up in comfy pjs, and would get quite
huffy if we brought the poodles along for their customary spoiling.

To be fair, we often (three times so far this year) eat out with friends,
but only when they won't let us cook.

Martin
--
Martin Golding | I cook, therefore I am. You eat.
DoD #236 BMWMOA #55952 SMTC #2 | What's THAT supposed to prove?

TOM KAN PA wrote:

> I'm sure this has been posted before, but it's worth an encore.

No, it really isn't. It's a sensationalist bit of lightweight
nonsense. Food is marked up in restaurants. Stop the presses. This
twit writer didn't realize that it's marked up *from wholesale* not
retail.

I wonder how much the paper she printed out her story on cost. Her ink
cartridge in her printer. How much did she get paid for it. Should
only be a few cents, by her logic, right?

No, it isn't worth an encore because it's egregiously careless and
biased with a wildly unbalanced bit of "reportage." If she really
believes this stuff, she has no business writing for a business
website. If she doesn't and is just trying to stir the pot, she's
incompetent at her job. Actually, either way, she's incompetent. As
are any editorial people who let it run.

Her name is Dayana Yochim. A real "be sure to miss" on any tour of
competent writers.

Pastorio

>
> Real Meal Steals
>
> Where Restaurants Getcha
>
> Americans just love other people's cooking. A recent survey by the foodies at
> Zagat's revealed that diners eat out an average of 3.4 times a week, spending
> $25 each time. Sure, we pay more for the convenience and service, but exactly
> how much more? When you find out, you might just lose your appetite.
>
> By Dayana Yochim

Julia Altshuler wrote in message
>This leads to an interesting tangent.
>
>Is there anyone who loves to cook, considers himself (or herself) good
>at it, loves to try new recipes at home and to entertain who DOESN"T
>also eat out a lot?
>

that would be me. we'd eat out more often (maybe once a month or so) if
money was less tight.

--
Saerah

TANSTAAFL

"We're all one thing, Lieutenant. That's what I've come to realize. Like
cells in a body. 'Cept we can't see the body. The way fish can't see the
ocean. And so we envy each other. Hurt each other. Hate each other. How
silly is that? A heart cell hating a lung cell." - Cassie from THE THREE

In article <%2XKb.81639$I07.407646@attbi_s53>,
Julia Altshuler > wrote:

> This leads to an interesting tangent.
>
> Is there anyone who loves to cook, considers himself (or herself) good
> at it, loves to try new recipes at home and to entertain who DOESN"T
> also eat out a lot?
>
> I know people who almost never eat out. Their meals at home are the
> same plain food year after year. When they do eat out, it is to get
> someone else to do the preparation and clean-up, not to try something
> new or to eat something they'd never eat at home.
>
> I know people who hate to cook at home. They eat out all the time, but
> they always order relatively plain, non-adventurous food.
>
> I don't know anyone who loves to cook and is adventurous with home
> cooking who doesn't also eat at restaurants.
>
> --Lia
>

<raises hand>
I consider myself to be very adventurous in the kitchen,
and seldom eat out. Maybe once per month if that, and it's planned...

When I DO eat out, I like to try things that I've not tried before. ;-)

I find being adventurous at home to be less expensive as a general rule,
with the notable exception of those delectible 3-4 count shrimp we
bought for Sunday dinner a couple of weeks ago!

Worth every penny of the $50.00 I paid for 8 of them.

Served with sauteed fresh Shitakes on the side, and lemon butter with
steamed rainbow chard.

It was enough food tho' to serve 2 meals for the two of us. ;-)

Sorry!

K.

--
>,,<Cat's Haven Hobby >,,<
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...user id=katra

Kajikit wrote:
>
> Julia Altshuler saw Sally selling seashells by the seashore and told

> >
> >Is there anyone who loves to cook, considers himself (or herself) good
> >at it, loves to try new recipes at home and to entertain who DOESN"T
> >also eat out a lot?
> >
> >I know people who almost never eat out. Their meals at home are the
> >same plain food year after year. When they do eat out, it is to get
> >someone else to do the preparation and clean-up, not to try something
> >new or to eat something they'd never eat at home.
> >
> >I know people who hate to cook at home. They eat out all the time, but
> >they always order relatively plain, non-adventurous food.
> >
> >I don't know anyone who loves to cook and is adventurous with home
> >cooking who doesn't also eat at restaurants.
>
> We don't... because we can't afford it Restaurant food IS expensive
> - that's to be expected. Most of the time it's worth the price, but
> when it's not it's very disappointing.
>
> We eat plenty good at home too... maybe not caviar and lobster, but I
> enjoy cooking and my brother is a master in the kitchen. He says 'why
> go out to pay for something that I can make better at home?'

You just described my ex mil to a T. She is a FABulous cook,
the best I ever met. No matter how simple or how complicated,
whatever she made it was the best you ever had. So, if you mentioned
eating out she would just be puzzled, why go out when you can make it
cheaper and better at home?

Uh, YOU can make it cheaper and better at home. (laugh) At any rate,
not everyone finds eating out all that amusing, I guess. I just like
to get out and people watch, whatever.

nancy

"Craig Welch" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:48:46 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dee Randall" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I did a find for "Restaurant" and "Restaurants" and didn't find it.
> >>
> >> So thanks for posting it -- even tho it must be a misdemeanor to be a
> >> newbie on this list.
> >> Dee
> >
> >First, it's not a list, this is a newsgroup. Also, Tom isn't really a
> >newbie. He just posts a lot crap to Usenet and never really contributes
> >anything. Apparently he doesn't have access to Google and relies on
others
> >to solve the most simple problems. Oh, and if you say something about
him
> >that he doesn't like, you can expect an email protesting your statement.
> >Finally, while it isn't a misdemeanor to top post, it is contrary to the
> >conventions of posting to Usenet.
>
> Quite right. So why didn't you trim out all the stuff that appeared
> *under* your little bit?

I never know what to do with the messages that have both top and bottom
posting.

In ,
Vox Humana > typed:
> "Craig Welch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 17:48:46 GMT, "Vox Humana" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Dee Randall" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I did a find for "Restaurant" and "Restaurants" and didn't find it.
>>>>
>>>> So thanks for posting it -- even tho it must be a misdemeanor to be a
>>>> newbie on this list.
>>>> Dee
>>>
>>> First, it's not a list, this is a newsgroup. Also, Tom isn't really a
>>> newbie. He just posts a lot crap to Usenet and never really contributes
>>> anything. Apparently he doesn't have access to Google and relies on
others
>>> to solve the most simple problems. Oh, and if you say something about
him
>>> that he doesn't like, you can expect an email protesting your statement.
>>> Finally, while it isn't a misdemeanor to top post, it is contrary to the
>>> conventions of posting to Usenet.
>>
>> Quite right. So why didn't you trim out all the stuff that appeared
>> *under* your little bit?
>
> I never know what to do with the messages that have both top and bottom
> posting.

Ignore them altogether?

Trim the part that you aren't responding to?

Intersperse your replies (like you did) and snip anything that comes after
your last reply?

Don't trim a thing?

BOB

I'm delighted to be shown wrong. When I wrote earlier, I was sure that
people who loved to cook at home also ate out often. It turns out that
lots of people cook wonderful gourmet meals at home and rarely eat in
restaurants. I'm glad to meet all of you.

--Lia