Found this.

Lenona.

http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...entid=27656377

Dear Miss Manners,
Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay. My parents taught
me it is polite to put up a little "argument over it," and I have
always tried to do this when I have the opportunity; whether it is
simply paying for myself or picking up the entire check.

My husband believes if you are out with someone a little more well off
you should simply take their offer, no argument.

I feel like this is rude, but my problem is that I am just out of
college and recently married. I can't necessarily follow through with
the "argument" if I win. We see our parents on a pretty regular basis,
and so tend to eat out with them frequently. The informality of these
dinners means that no one specifies who pays for whom. Should dinners
like these be understood as just dutch, or is it okay to simply accept
as soon as they reach for the bill?

Gentle Reader,
Your husband's theory that those with more money should subsidize the
entertaining of those with less is doomed. Miss Manners promises you
that eventually, the perpetual hosts will feel that they are valued
only for their ability to pick up the bill.

Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and
will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. But
even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a place
that you can afford.

On Feb 13, 3:22*pm, Lenona > wrote:
> Found this.
>
> Lenona.
>
> http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...documentid=276....
>
> Dear Miss Manners,
> Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
> of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
> was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
> taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay. My parents taught
> me it is polite to put up a little "argument over it," and I have
> always tried to do this when I have the opportunity; whether it is
> simply paying for myself or picking up the entire check.
>
> My husband believes if you are out with someone a little more well off
> you should simply take their offer, no argument.
>
> I feel like this is rude, but my problem is that I am just out of
> college and recently married. I can't necessarily follow through with
> the "argument" if I win. We see our parents on a pretty regular basis,
> and so tend to eat out with them frequently. The informality of these
> dinners means that no one specifies who pays for whom. Should dinners
> like these be understood as just dutch, or is it okay to simply accept
> as soon as they reach for the bill?
>
> Gentle Reader,
> Your husband's theory that those with more money should subsidize the
> entertaining of those with less is doomed. Miss Manners promises you
> that eventually, the perpetual hosts will feel that they are valued
> only for their ability to pick up the bill.
>
> Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
> children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and
> will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. But
> even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
> issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a place
> that you can afford.

>
>
*Sigh* Do you have the hots for Miss Manners???

?
"Lenona" > wrote
> http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...entid=27656377
>
> Dear Miss Manners,
> Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
> of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
> was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
> taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay.

> Gentle Reader,
> Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
> children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and
> will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. But
> even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
> issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a place
> that you can afford.

If I invite you as my guest, I pay
If you invite me as your guest, you pay
If friends say "do you want to go out to eat", we split it

As for paying for (adult) children, it pretty much applies the same way but
can change with their finances. My son always pays though (his choice) and
can easily afford it.

On Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:22:19 -0800 (PST), Lenona >
wrote:

> Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
> children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and
> will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. But
> even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
> issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a place
> that you can afford.

How true! It's especially nice when parents are retired and their
children have eclipsed their pre-retirement salaries. I'll let my
kids can pay for me any time. They can afford it.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"itsjoannotjoann" > wrote in message
...
> On Feb 13, 3:22 pm, Lenona > wrote:
>> Found this.
>>
>> Lenona.
>>
>> http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...documentid=276...
>>
>> Dear Miss Manners,
>> Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
>> of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
>> was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
>> taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay. My parents taught
>> me it is polite to put up a little "argument over it," and I have
>> always tried to do this when I have the opportunity; whether it is
>> simply paying for myself or picking up the entire check.
>>
>> My husband believes if you are out with someone a little more well off
>> you should simply take their offer, no argument.
>>
(How would you know if you're out with someone a little more well off?)

I agree with Ed. If I invite you, it's my treat. If you invite me, I
expect you to pay. But the ground rules really should be set down in
advance. For example, I took care of my neighbor's cats when she was gone
for two weeks. When she got back she said, "Let me take you to lunch."
That's clear-cut, well defined. She paid for lunch. When she drove me and
my cat to Charleston so my cat could undergo a medical procedure I made it
clear I was paying for the gas AND taking her to lunch. Again, clear-cut.

As for parents paying for adult children's meals or vice versa, we weren't
really a go out to dinner family. But I don't recall my parents ever
turning down one of us offering to pay the check.

Jill

On Feb 14, 10:29*am, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>
> I agree with Ed. *If I invite you, it's my treat. *If you invite me, I
> expect you to pay. *But the ground rules really should be set down in
> advance. *For example, I took care of my neighbor's cats when she was gone
> for two weeks. *When she got back she said, "Let me take you to lunch."
> That's clear-cut, well defined. *She paid for lunch. *When she drove me and
> my cat to Charleston so my cat could undergo a medical procedure I made it
> clear I was paying for the gas AND taking her to lunch. *Again, clear-cut.


If only everyone would do that..........

From a hotheaded male at Glennsacks.com (the site, which is mainly
about the rights of divorced fathers, has changed drastically and you
can't find comments there anymore, so I'm guessing the audience has
shifted to www.fathersandfamilies.org )

"This all has very little to do with money. Neither does it have
anything to do with fancy-shmancy arguments. It's really quite simple.
If I'm sitting across the table from a woman who touts her grrrlll
power during a date, and then when the check comes, she runs for the
women's room or hides her head in the sand, I know she's full of
S__t.

"She's a con artist and a liar. Why? Because she claims to be one
thing, then acts like another thing.

"THE MONEY IS NOT THE ISSUE.
"I'll say it again:
"THE MONEY IS NOT THE ISSUE.

"The issue, for me at least, is CHARACTER AND INTEGRITY. It's about
someone saying 'This is what I am,' and then acting that way."

(end)

He may have a point, assuming he didn't formally ask her out, but he's
clearly missing the obvious - that it only makes sense to determine in
ADVANCE who's going to be paying for what, to avoid AWKWARDNESS. Seems
to me, when you're a man "invited" by a woman, it's as easy as saying:
"Sounds nice. Are we going Dutch?" (Few women, I hope, would splutter
and say: "I thought YOU would pay for ME.") If you don't want to go
Dutch, you can say: "Sounds nice, but I'm afraid we'll have to go out
some other time - I'm saving money for X." Then, at least, the woman
is free to say "no, I mean I want to treat you to lunch." IF she means
that.

MM once said in a 1980s book(?) that when a woman who is not a hooker
goes around trying to get men to buy drinks for her, one repsonse from
the men could be: "And here I was hoping you'd buy me
one."

Lenona.

Lenona wrote:

> From a hotheaded male at Glennsacks.com (the site, which is mainly
> about the rights of divorced fathers, has changed drastically and you
> can't find comments there anymore, so I'm guessing the audience has
> shifted to www.fathersandfamilies.org )
>
> "This all has very little to do with money. Neither does it have
> anything to do with fancy-shmancy arguments. It's really quite simple.
> If I'm sitting across the table from a woman who touts her grrrlll
> power during a date, and then when the check comes, she runs for the
> women's room or hides her head in the sand, I know she's full of
> S__t.
>
> "She's a con artist and a liar. Why? Because she claims to be one
> thing, then acts like another thing.

Boy, women must be lining up to date a charmer like him. If you are
going to begrudge taking me out for dinner, don't ask me. It's that
simple. I am not someone who feels comfortable not paying my
way, and I have insulted guys by offering to chip in for the check,
but if we're on our first date and you're looking hard at me to see
how I act when the bill comes, I'd rather stay home. We have no
long term prospects anyway, because that kind of attitude isn't
for me.

nancy

On Feb 14, 12:19*pm, "Nancy Young" >
wrote:

> Boy, women must be lining up to date a charmer like him. *If you are
> going to begrudge taking me out for dinner, don't ask me. *It's that
> simple. *I am not someone who feels comfortable not paying my
> way, and I have insulted guys by offering to chip in for the check,
> but if we're on our first date and you're looking hard at me to see
> how I act when the bill comes, I'd rather stay home. *We have no
> long term prospects anyway, because that kind of attitude isn't
> for me.


Yes, well, as I implied, chances are he's under the impression that,
even if you do the (vague) inviting, it's ALWAYS supposed to be a
Dutch date unless you say, early on, that it isn't. A lot of "hosts,"
both male and female, mistakenly make that assumption.

Of course, if she's the one who made the suggestion that they go out
to eat but now is acting as though he should pay for ALL of it, that's
clearly a lot worse.

Another thing to wonder about is: If she's such a take-charge,
braggart type as he describes, how hard would it have been for her to
ask, early on, whether he was treating her or not?

Lenona.

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:07:01 -0800 (PST), Lenona >
wrote:

> Of course, if she's the one who made the suggestion that they go out
> to eat but now is acting as though he should pay for ALL of it, that's
> clearly a lot worse.
>
> Another thing to wonder about is: If she's such a take-charge,
> braggart type as he describes, how hard would it have been for her to
> ask, early on, whether he was treating her or not?

It's pretty simple. Pay for dinner and don't go out with her again.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

Lenona wrote:
> On Feb 14, 12:19 pm, "Nancy Young" >
> wrote:
>
>> Boy, women must be lining up to date a charmer like him. If you are
>> going to begrudge taking me out for dinner, don't ask me. It's that
>> simple. I am not someone who feels comfortable not paying my
>> way, and I have insulted guys by offering to chip in for the check,
>> but if we're on our first date and you're looking hard at me to see
>> how I act when the bill comes, I'd rather stay home. We have no
>> long term prospects anyway, because that kind of attitude isn't
>> for me.
>
>
> Yes, well, as I implied, chances are he's under the impression that,
> even if you do the (vague) inviting, it's ALWAYS supposed to be a
> Dutch date unless you say, early on, that it isn't. A lot of
> "hosts,"
> both male and female, mistakenly make that assumption.
>
> Of course, if she's the one who made the suggestion that they go out
> to eat but now is acting as though he should pay for ALL of it,
> that's
> clearly a lot worse.
>
> Another thing to wonder about is: If she's such a take-charge,
> braggart type as he describes, how hard would it have been for her
> to
> ask, early on, whether he was treating her or not?
>
> Lenona.

I'm with Nancy all the way on this one. If I were on a first date and
was invited to dinner, I would expect him to pay. If I knew the
person well strictly as a friend, I'd have no hesitation in saying,
"Fine but let's go Dutch". If he'd taken me out quite a few times,
I'd say (and have said), "This is my treat".
That way, I can keep my independence and live with myself.

Dora

On 2/13/2011 4:22 PM, Lenona wrote:
> Found this.
>
> Lenona.
>
> http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...entid=27656377
>
> Dear Miss Manners,
> Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
> of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
> was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
> taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay. My parents taught
> me it is polite to put up a little "argument over it," and I have
> always tried to do this when I have the opportunity; whether it is
> simply paying for myself or picking up the entire check.
>
> My husband believes if you are out with someone a little more well off
> you should simply take their offer, no argument.
>
> I feel like this is rude, but my problem is that I am just out of
> college and recently married. I can't necessarily follow through with
> the "argument" if I win. We see our parents on a pretty regular basis,
> and so tend to eat out with them frequently. The informality of these
> dinners means that no one specifies who pays for whom. Should dinners
> like these be understood as just dutch, or is it okay to simply accept
> as soon as they reach for the bill?
>
> Gentle Reader,
> Your husband's theory that those with more money should subsidize the
> entertaining of those with less is doomed. Miss Manners promises you
> that eventually, the perpetual hosts will feel that they are valued
> only for their ability to pick up the bill.
>
> Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
> children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and
> will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. But
> even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
> issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a place
> that you can afford.

It seems to me that is the dinner/lunch is suggested in the following
manner it is dutch - "How about getting together for lunch on Tuesday?"
or "Would you like to go out for dinner next Saturday?" or something
like that.

But if you say "I'd like to take you out to dinner on Friday." or if
someone sayst that to you, that means the person doing the inviting is
paying.

If you do go on a supposed "dutch" either party may decide that they
want to pay for the other and say, "That's okay, I'll get the check."
or something to that effect.

I think that's very straight forward. Just because one person
"suggests" the meal doesn't mean they are offering to pay. It's when
they say "Let me take you to dinner." that they are offering to pay.

Kate

--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011 14:15:15 -0500, Kate Connally
> wrote:

> I think that's very straight forward. Just because one person
> "suggests" the meal doesn't mean they are offering to pay. It's when
> they say "Let me take you to dinner." that they are offering to pay.

I think only people who don't get out much are confused by the
language.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> ?
> "Lenona" > wrote
>> http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...entid=27656377
>>
>> Dear Miss Manners,
>> Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
>> of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
>> was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
>> taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay.
>
>> Gentle Reader,
>> Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
>> children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and
>> will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. But
>> even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
>> issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a place
>> that you can afford.
>
> If I invite you as my guest, I pay
> If you invite me as your guest, you pay
> If friends say "do you want to go out to eat", we split it
>
> As for paying for (adult) children, it pretty much applies the same way
> but can change with their finances. My son always pays though (his
> choice) and can easily afford it.
>
>
>

And if it is a date and he 'lets' you see what he is paying-he wants
something more than just dinner.

Lenona wrote:

> Another thing to wonder about is: If she's such a take-charge,
> braggart type as he describes, how hard would it have been for her to
> ask, early on, whether he was treating her or not?
>
> Lenona.

How exactly would you word that??

jmcquown wrote:
>
> "itsjoannotjoann" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Feb 13, 3:22 pm, Lenona > wrote:
>>> Found this.
>>>
>>> Lenona.
>>>
>>> http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...documentid=276...
>>>
>>>
>>> Dear Miss Manners,
>>> Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
>>> of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
>>> was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
>>> taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay. My parents taught
>>> me it is polite to put up a little "argument over it," and I have
>>> always tried to do this when I have the opportunity; whether it is
>>> simply paying for myself or picking up the entire check.
>>>
>>> My husband believes if you are out with someone a little more well off
>>> you should simply take their offer, no argument.
>>>
> (How would you know if you're out with someone a little more well off?)
>
> I agree with Ed. If I invite you, it's my treat. If you invite me, I
> expect you to pay. But the ground rules really should be set down in
> advance. For example, I took care of my neighbor's cats when she was
> gone for two weeks. When she got back she said, "Let me take you to
> lunch." That's clear-cut, well defined. She paid for lunch. When she
> drove me and my cat to Charleston so my cat could undergo a medical
> procedure I made it clear I was paying for the gas AND taking her to
> lunch. Again, clear-cut.
>
> As for parents paying for adult children's meals or vice versa, we
> weren't really a go out to dinner family. But I don't recall my
> parents ever turning down one of us offering to pay the check.
>
> Jill
Did your POS car finally bite the dust?

Why are people so afraid to utter the D word PRIOR to entering the
resto? I make no qualms about making it clear that it's a Dutch deal.

Thing that kills ME is acquaintances who enter a resto, spy you,
plunk down at your table, barely cover their meals, then bolt. I've
gotten stuck picking up the tax and tip for these types a few times.

Goomba wrote:

> Lenona wrote:
>
>> Another thing to wonder about is: If she's such a take-charge,
>> braggart type as he describes, how hard would it have been for her to
>> ask, early on, whether he was treating her or not?
>>
>> Lenona.
>
>
> How exactly would you word that??

If i invite some one to dine or even eat with me in advance, r.s.v.p. or
spur of the moment, i presume it is understood that i am providing or
paying for the food (or at least offering to do so), if i am asked i
assume the same, that the person who asks me is taking responsibility
for any payment. However, due to my experience of life, i never go
into a restaurant with out the means to pay for anything i might consume
or otherwise purchase, i used to wear a belt with a $100 bill in its
inside zippered pocket when i went out for an evenings revelry

There are exceptions such as pot lucks, and any other such or type of
gathering where one is invited to eat (if not dine) but requested in the
invitation to bring a suitable dish of ones own choosing to help provide
the meal or food. Or a group meal where it is decided in advance how
payment will be made, either separate checks or a single payer & we all
pay our part + tip of.

This can get complicated in night-clubs, taverns & such where one
person takes it on themselves, with or without consultation to "run a
tab' on their credit card and then expect the people they are with to
reimburse for their own drinks and any snacks ordered.

I have never been in such a situation but i have seen it happen to others.
--
JL

In article >,
says...
>
> On 2/13/2011 4:22 PM, Lenona wrote:
> > Found this.
> >
> > Lenona.
> >
> > http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...entid=27656377
> >
> > Dear Miss Manners,
> > Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
> > of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
> > was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
> > taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay. My parents taught
> > me it is polite to put up a little "argument over it," and I have
> > always tried to do this when I have the opportunity; whether it is
> > simply paying for myself or picking up the entire check.
> >
> > My husband believes if you are out with someone a little more well off
> > you should simply take their offer, no argument.
> >
> > I feel like this is rude, but my problem is that I am just out of
> > college and recently married. I can't necessarily follow through with
> > the "argument" if I win. We see our parents on a pretty regular basis,
> > and so tend to eat out with them frequently. The informality of these
> > dinners means that no one specifies who pays for whom. Should dinners
> > like these be understood as just dutch, or is it okay to simply accept
> > as soon as they reach for the bill?
> >
> > Gentle Reader,
> > Your husband's theory that those with more money should subsidize the
> > entertaining of those with less is doomed. Miss Manners promises you
> > that eventually, the perpetual hosts will feel that they are valued
> > only for their ability to pick up the bill.
> >
> > Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
> > children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and
> > will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. But
> > even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
> > issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a place
> > that you can afford.
>
> It seems to me that is the dinner/lunch is suggested in the following
> manner it is dutch - "How about getting together for lunch on Tuesday?"
> or "Would you like to go out for dinner next Saturday?" or something
> like that.
>
> But if you say "I'd like to take you out to dinner on Friday." or if
> someone sayst that to you, that means the person doing the inviting is
> paying.
>
> If you do go on a supposed "dutch" either party may decide that they
> want to pay for the other and say, "That's okay, I'll get the check."
> or something to that effect.
>
> I think that's very straight forward. Just because one person
> "suggests" the meal doesn't mean they are offering to pay. It's when
> they say "Let me take you to dinner." that they are offering to pay.

This is far, far too subtle a distinction of wording IMO.

Could you provide a comprehensive list of code words that indicate an
offer to treat or no offer to treat?

In article >,
says...
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ?
> > "Lenona" > wrote
> >> http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...entid=27656377
> >>
> >> Dear Miss Manners,
> >> Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
> >> of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
> >> was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
> >> taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay.
> >
> >> Gentle Reader,
> >> Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
> >> children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and
> >> will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. But
> >> even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
> >> issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a place
> >> that you can afford.
> >
> > If I invite you as my guest, I pay
> > If you invite me as your guest, you pay
> > If friends say "do you want to go out to eat", we split it
> >
> > As for paying for (adult) children, it pretty much applies the same way
> > but can change with their finances. My son always pays though (his
> > choice) and can easily afford it.
> >
> >
> >
>
> And if it is a date and he 'lets' you see what he is paying-he wants
> something more than just dinner.

If it is a date take it as a given that he wants something more than
dinner.

J. Clarke wrote:

> says...
>> And if it is a date and he 'lets' you see what he is paying-he
>> wants
>> something more than just dinner.
>
> If it is a date take it as a given that he wants something more than
> dinner.

Well, big whoops.

"L G" > wrote in message
...
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> "itsjoannotjoann" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Feb 13, 3:22 pm, Lenona > wrote:
>>>> Found this.
>>>>
>>>> Lenona.
>>>>
>>>> http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...documentid=276...
>>>>
>>>> Dear Miss Manners,
>>>> Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
>>>> of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
>>>> was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
>>>> taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay. My parents taught
>>>> me it is polite to put up a little "argument over it," and I have
>>>> always tried to do this when I have the opportunity; whether it is
>>>> simply paying for myself or picking up the entire check.
>>>>
>>>> My husband believes if you are out with someone a little more well off
>>>> you should simply take their offer, no argument.
>>>>
>> (How would you know if you're out with someone a little more well off?)
>>
>> I agree with Ed. If I invite you, it's my treat. If you invite me, I
>> expect you to pay. But the ground rules really should be set down in
>> advance. For example, I took care of my neighbor's cats when she was
>> gone for two weeks. When she got back she said, "Let me take you to
>> lunch." That's clear-cut, well defined. She paid for lunch. When she
>> drove me and my cat to Charleston so my cat could undergo a medical
>> procedure I made it clear I was paying for the gas AND taking her to
>> lunch. Again, clear-cut.
>>
>> As for parents paying for adult children's meals or vice versa, we
>> weren't really a go out to dinner family. But I don't recall my parents
>> ever turning down one of us offering to pay the check.
>>
>> Jill
> Did your POS car finally bite the dust?


WTF are you talking about?! You really are a piece of work. Still jealous
because I inherited a house? Okay, I'll indulge you. She drove us because
I'd never been to Charleston and had no idea how to get to the specialized
clinic my cat needed. Happy now? Idiot. BTW, my car only has 20,000 miles
on it. If you even own a car (which I doubt) I'll bet you're congratulating
yourself for having an old junker truck with chains to hold the tailgait
closed. Asswipe.

Jill

In article ocal>,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
> >
> > On 2/13/2011 4:22 PM, Lenona wrote:
> > > Found this.
> > >
> > > Lenona.
> > >
> > > http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...entid=27656377
> > >
> > > Dear Miss Manners,
> > > Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
> > > of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
> > > was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
> > > taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay. My parents taught
> > > me it is polite to put up a little "argument over it," and I have
> > > always tried to do this when I have the opportunity; whether it is
> > > simply paying for myself or picking up the entire check.
> > >
> > > My husband believes if you are out with someone a little more well off
> > > you should simply take their offer, no argument.
> > >
> > > I feel like this is rude, but my problem is that I am just out of
> > > college and recently married. I can't necessarily follow through with
> > > the "argument" if I win. We see our parents on a pretty regular basis,
> > > and so tend to eat out with them frequently. The informality of these
> > > dinners means that no one specifies who pays for whom. Should dinners
> > > like these be understood as just dutch, or is it okay to simply accept
> > > as soon as they reach for the bill?
> > >
> > > Gentle Reader,
> > > Your husband's theory that those with more money should subsidize the
> > > entertaining of those with less is doomed. Miss Manners promises you
> > > that eventually, the perpetual hosts will feel that they are valued
> > > only for their ability to pick up the bill.
> > >
> > > Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
> > > children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and
> > > will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. But
> > > even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
> > > issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a place
> > > that you can afford.
> >
> > It seems to me that is the dinner/lunch is suggested in the following
> > manner it is dutch - "How about getting together for lunch on Tuesday?"
> > or "Would you like to go out for dinner next Saturday?" or something
> > like that.
> >
> > But if you say "I'd like to take you out to dinner on Friday." or if
> > someone sayst that to you, that means the person doing the inviting is
> > paying.
> >
> > If you do go on a supposed "dutch" either party may decide that they
> > want to pay for the other and say, "That's okay, I'll get the check."
> > or something to that effect.
> >
> > I think that's very straight forward. Just because one person
> > "suggests" the meal doesn't mean they are offering to pay. It's when
> > they say "Let me take you to dinner." that they are offering to pay.
>
> This is far, far too subtle a distinction of wording IMO.
>
> Could you provide a comprehensive list of code words that indicate an
> offer to treat or no offer to treat?

When the server takes the order, "Separate checks, please."

--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller

"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Why are people so afraid to utter the D word PRIOR to entering the
> resto? I make no qualms about making it clear that it's a Dutch deal.
>
> Thing that kills ME is acquaintances who enter a resto, spy you,
> plunk down at your table, barely cover their meals, then bolt. I've
> gotten stuck picking up the tax and tip for these types a few times.
>

There were situations at work where we'd go out for a group lunch at a
restaurant in a nearby hotel. It was pretty much understood everyone pay
their own way. Separate checks, please. (I'm talking about a group of 10
people.) At this particular lunch someone told the server one check was
fine, we'd just split it. What?! That's not fair. I had a bowl of soup.
This person ordered soup, salad, an entree and dessert. We were at the
table for a good 30 minutes trying to divvy up the check.

Jill

In article >,
says...
>
> In article ocal>,
> "J. Clarke" > wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > says...
> > >
> > > On 2/13/2011 4:22 PM, Lenona wrote:
> > > > Found this.
> > > >
> > > > Lenona.
> > > >
> > > > http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...entid=27656377
> > > >
> > > > Dear Miss Manners,
> > > > Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
> > > > of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
> > > > was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
> > > > taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay. My parents taught
> > > > me it is polite to put up a little "argument over it," and I have
> > > > always tried to do this when I have the opportunity; whether it is
> > > > simply paying for myself or picking up the entire check.
> > > >
> > > > My husband believes if you are out with someone a little more well off
> > > > you should simply take their offer, no argument.
> > > >
> > > > I feel like this is rude, but my problem is that I am just out of
> > > > college and recently married. I can't necessarily follow through with
> > > > the "argument" if I win. We see our parents on a pretty regular basis,
> > > > and so tend to eat out with them frequently. The informality of these
> > > > dinners means that no one specifies who pays for whom. Should dinners
> > > > like these be understood as just dutch, or is it okay to simply accept
> > > > as soon as they reach for the bill?
> > > >
> > > > Gentle Reader,
> > > > Your husband's theory that those with more money should subsidize the
> > > > entertaining of those with less is doomed. Miss Manners promises you
> > > > that eventually, the perpetual hosts will feel that they are valued
> > > > only for their ability to pick up the bill.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
> > > > children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and
> > > > will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. But
> > > > even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
> > > > issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a place
> > > > that you can afford.
> > >
> > > It seems to me that is the dinner/lunch is suggested in the following
> > > manner it is dutch - "How about getting together for lunch on Tuesday?"
> > > or "Would you like to go out for dinner next Saturday?" or something
> > > like that.
> > >
> > > But if you say "I'd like to take you out to dinner on Friday." or if
> > > someone sayst that to you, that means the person doing the inviting is
> > > paying.
> > >
> > > If you do go on a supposed "dutch" either party may decide that they
> > > want to pay for the other and say, "That's okay, I'll get the check."
> > > or something to that effect.
> > >
> > > I think that's very straight forward. Just because one person
> > > "suggests" the meal doesn't mean they are offering to pay. It's when
> > > they say "Let me take you to dinner." that they are offering to pay.
> >
> > This is far, far too subtle a distinction of wording IMO.
> >
> > Could you provide a comprehensive list of code words that indicate an
> > offer to treat or no offer to treat?
>
> When the server takes the order, "Separate checks, please."

You've missed the point of my inquiry. If one is supposed to glean from
"I'd like to take you" vs "would you like to go out" that in the one
case the person making the inquiry is offering to pay while in the other
one is offering Dutch, then I would like to know all the other code
words involved in such an inquiry so that I don't fail to communicate.

On Feb 14, 4:40*pm, Goomba > wrote:
> Lenona wrote:
> > Another thing to wonder about is: If she's such a take-charge,
> > braggart type as he describes, how hard would it have been for her to
> > ask, early on, whether he was treating her or not?


> How exactly would you word that??

If you're being "invited" and you're not sure what the terms are AND
you're not in the mood to spend money on a restaurant meal, even a
cheap one, you can say: "Sounds nice, but I'm afraid we'll have to go
out some other time - I'm saving money for X, so I'm not spending it
on meals out."

That leaves the other person free to say "no, I want to treat you to
lunch." IF that's what's meant.

Of course, you still have to consider whether you are likely to want
to reciprocate by playing host in the future. If the answer is "not at
all likely" it's not polite to accept a favor you have no intention of
returning.

Lenona.

Goomba wrote:
> Lenona wrote:
>
>> Another thing to wonder about is: If she's such a take-charge,
>> braggart type as he describes, how hard would it have been for her to
>> ask, early on, whether he was treating her or not?
>
> How exactly would you word that??

Couldn't be easier, when the take-charge braggart takes a breath from
raging just announce a toast and offer a big THANK YOU for treating us
to dinner. Of course only a pinhead associates with braggarts more
than once. Whenever I find myself in the company of those types I
excuse myself before dinner is served... if asked why I tell the
truth, I say I'm suddenly feeling nauseated.

On a somewhat different subject, I'd like to add: There are only two
polite types of potluck gatherings. One is the type where the "host"
and "guest" don't really know each other - such as a community
gathering at a church or a park. In that case, of course, you, as the
"guest," are not expected to reciprocate in the future by inviting the
"host" to your house, so helping out by cooking and bringing your own
dish makes sense. One usually gets the "invitation" by a mass mailing
- or by street flyers.

The other is where there is no "invitation" at all, because the GROUP
decides to have a potluck, not just one person who then inflicts the
idea on everyone else, who may or may not be annoyed at an
"invitation" to a party where no real hospitality is being offered.
(Even if you're really poor, chances are you can serve ice water and
crackers AFTER the guests had lunch or dinner elsewhere.)

The only exception I can think of is the case where the "host" is
bedridden or something similar and therefore will never be able to
come to my house. In that case, I consider it only fair to bring
something, even if I'm not asked to do so.

Trouble is, too many people - who were likely surrounded by shakedown-
artist families as schoolchildren - see NOTHING wrong with sending out
"invitations" to parties and making it clear the "guests" have to pay
cash to the bartender or pay for their own food or theatre tickets,
just because the "hosts" want to live above their means. Thankfully,
it is perfectly polite not to RSVP to such appalling messages, just as
one does not have to RSVP to fund-raiser "invitations" from
strangers.

Lenona.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 07:40:08 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>>
>> On 2/13/2011 4:22 PM, Lenona wrote:
>> > Found this.
>> >
>> > Lenona.
>> >
>> > http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...entid=27656377
>> >
>> > Dear Miss Manners,
>> > Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
>> > of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
>> > was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
>> > taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay. My parents taught
>> > me it is polite to put up a little "argument over it," and I have
>> > always tried to do this when I have the opportunity; whether it is
>> > simply paying for myself or picking up the entire check.
>> >
>> > My husband believes if you are out with someone a little more well off
>> > you should simply take their offer, no argument.
>> >
>> > I feel like this is rude, but my problem is that I am just out of
>> > college and recently married. I can't necessarily follow through with
>> > the "argument" if I win. We see our parents on a pretty regular basis,
>> > and so tend to eat out with them frequently. The informality of these
>> > dinners means that no one specifies who pays for whom. Should dinners
>> > like these be understood as just dutch, or is it okay to simply accept
>> > as soon as they reach for the bill?
>> >
>> > Gentle Reader,
>> > Your husband's theory that those with more money should subsidize the
>> > entertaining of those with less is doomed. Miss Manners promises you
>> > that eventually, the perpetual hosts will feel that they are valued
>> > only for their ability to pick up the bill.
>> >
>> > Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
>> > children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and
>> > will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. But
>> > even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
>> > issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a place
>> > that you can afford.
>>
>> It seems to me that is the dinner/lunch is suggested in the following
>> manner it is dutch - "How about getting together for lunch on Tuesday?"
>> or "Would you like to go out for dinner next Saturday?" or something
>> like that.
>>
>> But if you say "I'd like to take you out to dinner on Friday." or if
>> someone sayst that to you, that means the person doing the inviting is
>> paying.
>>
>> If you do go on a supposed "dutch" either party may decide that they
>> want to pay for the other and say, "That's okay, I'll get the check."
>> or something to that effect.
>>
>> I think that's very straight forward. Just because one person
>> "suggests" the meal doesn't mean they are offering to pay. It's when
>> they say "Let me take you to dinner." that they are offering to pay.
>
>This is far, far too subtle a distinction of wording IMO.
>
>Could you provide a comprehensive list of code words that indicate an
>offer to treat or no offer to treat?

When someone "suggests" the meal they are indeed offering to pay...
pretty wimpy but a bonafide offer nevertheless... no subtly
whatsoever. It's when someone *asks* would you care to go out to
dinner is when it's not an offer to pay. That's when the person doing
asking should immediately say we can share the cost or they can offer
to pay. Whenever anyone asks me if I'd care to go out to dinner but
doesn't immediately say we can share the cost or offer to pay is when
I say no thank you, because then I know I'm with some smarmy *******
who plans to stick me with the entire bill. And one thing I never do
is accept an offer to pay my share in cash when someone wants to put
the entire tab on their credit card... be well assured it's a
corporate card, they will pay nothing and keep your cash. That's when
I put my share on my plastic, and naturally I'll never see that person
again. In my small social group no one uses plastic, everyone antes
up cash.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 07:43:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
> wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > ?
>> > "Lenona" > wrote
>> >> http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...entid=27656377
>> >>
>> >> Dear Miss Manners,
>> >> Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
>> >> of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
>> >> was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
>> >> taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay.
>> >
>> >> Gentle Reader,
>> >> Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
>> >> children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and
>> >> will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. But
>> >> even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
>> >> issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a place
>> >> that you can afford.
>> >
>> > If I invite you as my guest, I pay
>> > If you invite me as your guest, you pay
>> > If friends say "do you want to go out to eat", we split it
>> >
>> > As for paying for (adult) children, it pretty much applies the same way
>> > but can change with their finances. My son always pays though (his
>> > choice) and can easily afford it.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> And if it is a date and he 'lets' you see what he is paying-he wants
>> something more than just dinner.

All normal brained females can see and tally the prices on the menu
when they order... and even when someone places the order they gotta
know that surf n' turf costs more than a burger w/fries.

>If it is a date take it as a given that he wants something more than
>dinner.

Well duh, that's true when a women accepts a date... and it's just as
likely it's the women who expects "something"... if all a women wants
is to eat dinner then she'd go out with her girlfriends. A date with
one man and one woman is by default a prelude to intimacy. Are you
really so naive?

> Trouble is, too many people - who were likely surrounded by shakedown-
> artist families as schoolchildren - see NOTHING wrong with sending out
> "invitations" to parties and making it clear the "guests" have to pay
> cash to the bartender or pay for their own food or theatre tickets,
> just because the "hosts" want to live above their means. Thankfully,
> it is perfectly polite not to RSVP to such appalling messages, just as
> one does not have to RSVP to fund-raiser "invitations" from
> strangers.


To clarify that last one, I'd like to say that you can't be sure that
your "guests" will be happy to spend money on a restaurants, however
cheap it might be. Or that they like the food at a particular place.
Or that they want to go to that particular theatre event - assuming
they even know anything about it. (I do not want to pay for any
theatre event unless I KNOW I'm likely to enjoy it!)

All the more reason to act like a real host and pay for everything. If
you can't, scale back.

Lenona.

On Feb 15, 10:21*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 07:43:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >In article >,
> >says...
>
> >> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > ?
> >> > "Lenona" > wrote
> >> >>http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...documentid=276...
>
> >> >> Dear Miss Manners,
> >> >> Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
> >> >> of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
> >> >> was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
> >> >> taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay.
>
> >> >> Gentle Reader,
> >> >> Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
> >> >> children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and
> >> >> will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. But
> >> >> even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
> >> >> issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a place
> >> >> that you can afford.
>
> >> > If I invite you as my guest, I pay
> >> > If you invite me as your guest, you pay
> >> > If friends say "do you want to go out to eat", we split it
>
> >> > As for paying for (adult) children, it pretty much applies the same way
> >> > but can change with their finances. *My son always pays though (his
> >> > choice) and can easily afford it.
>
> >> And if it is a date and he 'lets' you see what he is paying-he wants
> >> something more than just dinner.
>
> All normal brained females can see and tally the prices on the menu
> when they order... and even when someone places the order they gotta
> know that surf n' turf costs more than a burger w/fries.
>
> >If it is a date take it as a given that he wants something more than
> >dinner.
>
> Well duh, that's true when a women accepts a date... and it's just as
> likely it's the women who expects "something"... if all a women wants
> is to eat dinner then she'd go out with her girlfriends. *A date with
> one man and one woman is by default a prelude to intimacy. *Are you
> really so naive?

==
"A prelude to intimacy" eh? Were it ever that simple a process. Women
are a lot more complicated than that...in my experience. It usually
takes more than a dinner date or two to know a person other than
superficially. On the other hand, there are those who by nature or by
circumstance are not as astute in their conduct and will drop their
drawers in a flash. My advice would be to avoid that type.
==

On Feb 15, 9:38*am, "jmcquown" > wrote:
> "Kalmia" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Why are people so afraid to utter the *D word PRIOR to entering the
> > resto? *I make no qualms about making it clear that it's a Dutch deal..
>
> > Thing that kills ME is acquaintances *who enter a resto, spy you,
> > plunk down at your table, barely cover their meals, *then bolt. *I've
> > gotten stuck picking up the tax and tip for these types a few times.
>
> There were situations at work where we'd go out for a group lunch at a
> restaurant in a nearby hotel. *It was pretty much understood everyone pay
> their own way. *Separate checks, please. *(I'm talking about a group of 10
> people.) *At this particular lunch someone told the server one check was
> fine, we'd just split it. *What?! *That's not fair. *I had a bowl of soup.
> This person ordered soup, salad, an entree and dessert. *We were at the
> table for a good 30 minutes trying to divvy up the check.
>
> Jill

If you heard someone ask for one check, why didn't you speak up?
I got stuck once in my younger days, not thinking that I'd have to
subsidize the big eaters in the bunch. Now, in a big group, I go
armed with plenty of fives and ones, plunk down my share and sit back
and watch the battle between those with the twenties and fifties.

"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
> On Feb 15, 9:38 am, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>> "Kalmia" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Why are people so afraid to utter the D word PRIOR to entering the
>> > resto? I make no qualms about making it clear that it's a Dutch deal.
>>
>> > Thing that kills ME is acquaintances who enter a resto, spy you,
>> > plunk down at your table, barely cover their meals, then bolt. I've
>> > gotten stuck picking up the tax and tip for these types a few times.
>>
>> There were situations at work where we'd go out for a group lunch at a
>> restaurant in a nearby hotel. It was pretty much understood everyone pay
>> their own way. Separate checks, please. (I'm talking about a group of
>> 10
>> people.) At this particular lunch someone told the server one check was
>> fine, we'd just split it. What?! That's not fair. I had a bowl of
>> soup.
>> This person ordered soup, salad, an entree and dessert. We were at the
>> table for a good 30 minutes trying to divvy up the check.
>>
> If you heard someone ask for one check, why didn't you speak up?
> I got stuck once in my younger days, not thinking that I'd have to
> subsidize the big eaters in the bunch. Now, in a big group, I go
> armed with plenty of fives and ones, plunk down my share and sit back
> and watch the battle between those with the twenties and fifties.
>
This *was* my younger days. LOL Some of us tried to speak up but it was
lunch time and the server was rushed. IIRC I threw a fiver and a couple of
ones on the table and left while everyone else was trying to count things
out. I had to get back to work. It's terribly rude to expect someone to
split the check when you're eating half the things on the menu and someone
else just has the soup or a salad. Trust me, those people know what they're
doing.

Jill

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:46:50 -0800 (PST), Roy >
wrote:

>On Feb 15, 10:21*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 07:43:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >In article >,
>> >says...
>>
>> >> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> > ?
>> >> > "Lenona" > wrote
>> >> >>http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...documentid=276...
>>
>> >> >> Dear Miss Manners,
>> >> >> Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
>> >> >> of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
>> >> >> was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
>> >> >> taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay.
>>
>> >> >> Gentle Reader,
>> >> >> Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
>> >> >> children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and
>> >> >> will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. But
>> >> >> even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
>> >> >> issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a place
>> >> >> that you can afford.
>>
>> >> > If I invite you as my guest, I pay
>> >> > If you invite me as your guest, you pay
>> >> > If friends say "do you want to go out to eat", we split it
>>
>> >> > As for paying for (adult) children, it pretty much applies the same way
>> >> > but can change with their finances. *My son always pays though (his
>> >> > choice) and can easily afford it.
>>
>> >> And if it is a date and he 'lets' you see what he is paying-he wants
>> >> something more than just dinner.
>>
>> All normal brained females can see and tally the prices on the menu
>> when they order... and even when someone places the order they gotta
>> know that surf n' turf costs more than a burger w/fries.
>>
>> >If it is a date take it as a given that he wants something more than
>> >dinner.
>>
>> Well duh, that's true when a women accepts a date... and it's just as
>> likely it's the women who expects "something"... if all a women wants
>> is to eat dinner then she'd go out with her girlfriends. *A date with
>> one man and one woman is by default a prelude to intimacy. *Are you
>> really so naive?
>
>==
>"A prelude to intimacy" eh? Were it ever that simple a process. Women
>are a lot more complicated than that...in my experience. It usually
>takes more than a dinner date or two to know a person other than
>superficially. On the other hand, there are those who by nature or by
>circumstance are not as astute in their conduct and will drop their
>drawers in a flash. My advice would be to avoid that type.

What's wrong with knowing each other superficially... you want
profound intellectual banter join a book club... you don't
necessarilly need to get to know each other intellectually for high
quality intimacy, why toss away a good mutually satisfing lay... you
don't need to propose marriage. I think most people in long term
relationships as the years pass grow apart more than they grow
together... they live together is all but don't really know each other
intellectually or intimately, why do you think more than half of all
marriages fail? You most definitely are naive.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 13:42:20 -0800 (PST), Kalmia
> wrote:

>On Feb 15, 9:38*am, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>> "Kalmia" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Why are people so afraid to utter the *D word PRIOR to entering the
>> > resto? *I make no qualms about making it clear that it's a Dutch deal.
>>
>> > Thing that kills ME is acquaintances *who enter a resto, spy you,
>> > plunk down at your table, barely cover their meals, *then bolt. *I've
>> > gotten stuck picking up the tax and tip for these types a few times.
>>
>> There were situations at work where we'd go out for a group lunch at a
>> restaurant in a nearby hotel. *It was pretty much understood everyone pay
>> their own way. *Separate checks, please. *(I'm talking about a group of 10
>> people.) *At this particular lunch someone told the server one check was
>> fine, we'd just split it. *What?! *That's not fair. *I had a bowl of soup.
>> This person ordered soup, salad, an entree and dessert. *We were at the
>> table for a good 30 minutes trying to divvy up the check.
>>
>> Jill
>
>If you heard someone ask for one check, why didn't you speak up?
>I got stuck once in my younger days, not thinking that I'd have to
>subsidize the big eaters in the bunch. Now, in a big group, I go
>armed with plenty of fives and ones, plunk down my share and sit back
>and watch the battle between those with the twenties and fifties.

Good on you. I always carry an array small bills with the large
bills. Anytime I go to a restaurant whether alone of with others I
bring enough cash to pay my tab, I don't pay at restaurants with
plastic. I try to use my plastic for secure transactions only,
restaurants and bars are about the worst place to display your ID.

jmcquown wrote:
>
> "L G" > wrote in message
> ...
>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>
>>> "itsjoannotjoann" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>> On Feb 13, 3:22 pm, Lenona > wrote:
>>>>> Found this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lenona.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...documentid=276...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Miss Manners,
>>>>> Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the etiquette
>>>>> of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if it
>>>>> was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we are
>>>>> taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay. My parents taught
>>>>> me it is polite to put up a little "argument over it," and I have
>>>>> always tried to do this when I have the opportunity; whether it is
>>>>> simply paying for myself or picking up the entire check.
>>>>>
>>>>> My husband believes if you are out with someone a little more well
>>>>> off
>>>>> you should simply take their offer, no argument.
>>>>>
>>> (How would you know if you're out with someone a little more well off?)
>>>
>>> I agree with Ed. If I invite you, it's my treat. If you invite me,
>>> I expect you to pay. But the ground rules really should be set down
>>> in advance. For example, I took care of my neighbor's cats when she
>>> was gone for two weeks. When she got back she said, "Let me take
>>> you to lunch." That's clear-cut, well defined. She paid for lunch.
>>> When she drove me and my cat to Charleston so my cat could undergo a
>>> medical procedure I made it clear I was paying for the gas AND
>>> taking her to lunch. Again, clear-cut.
>>>
>>> As for parents paying for adult children's meals or vice versa, we
>>> weren't really a go out to dinner family. But I don't recall my
>>> parents ever turning down one of us offering to pay the check.
>>>
>>> Jill
>> Did your POS car finally bite the dust?
>
>
> WTF are you talking about?! You really are a piece of work. Still
> jealous because I inherited a house? Okay, I'll indulge you. She
> drove us because I'd never been to Charleston and had no idea how to
> get to the specialized clinic my cat needed. Happy now? Idiot. BTW,
> my car only has 20,000 miles on it. If you even own a car (which I
> doubt) I'll bet you're congratulating yourself for having an old
> junker truck with chains to hold the tailgait closed. Asswipe.
>
> Jill
I have two and the oldest is a 2008. Combined they sticker over
$100,000 - really. I'm not jealous of anything you have so get over
it. It is pretty sad that you had to find someone to drive you
somewhere just because you've never been there. It appears you have
other issues.

jmcquown wrote:
>
> "Kalmia" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Feb 15, 9:38 am, "jmcquown" > wrote:
>>> "Kalmia" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Why are people so afraid to utter the D word PRIOR to entering the
>>> > resto? I make no qualms about making it clear that it's a Dutch
>>> deal.
>>>
>>> > Thing that kills ME is acquaintances who enter a resto, spy you,
>>> > plunk down at your table, barely cover their meals, then bolt. I've
>>> > gotten stuck picking up the tax and tip for these types a few times.
>>>
>>> There were situations at work where we'd go out for a group lunch at a
>>> restaurant in a nearby hotel. It was pretty much understood
>>> everyone pay
>>> their own way. Separate checks, please. (I'm talking about a group
>>> of 10
>>> people.) At this particular lunch someone told the server one check
>>> was
>>> fine, we'd just split it. What?! That's not fair. I had a bowl of
>>> soup.
>>> This person ordered soup, salad, an entree and dessert. We were at the
>>> table for a good 30 minutes trying to divvy up the check.
>>>
>> If you heard someone ask for one check, why didn't you speak up?
>> I got stuck once in my younger days, not thinking that I'd have to
>> subsidize the big eaters in the bunch. Now, in a big group, I go
>> armed with plenty of fives and ones, plunk down my share and sit back
>> and watch the battle between those with the twenties and fifties.
>>
> This *was* my younger days. LOL Some of us tried to speak up but it
> was lunch time and the server was rushed. IIRC I threw a fiver and a
> couple of ones on the table and left while everyone else was trying to
> count things out. I had to get back to work. It's terribly rude to
> expect someone to split the check when you're eating half the things
> on the menu and someone else just has the soup or a salad. Trust me,
> those people know what they're doing.
>
> Jill
Sure. It's a conspiracy.

The long habit of paying for their children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so and will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention. How true! It's especially nice when parents are retired and their
children have eclipsed their pre-retirement salaries. But the ground rules really should be set down in advance. For example, I took care of my neighbor's cats when she was gone for two weeks. When she got back she said, "Let me take you to lunch." That's clear-cut, well defined. She paid for lunch.

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:46:50 -0800 (PST), Roy >
> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 15, 10:21 am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 07:43:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >In article >,
>>> >says...
>>>
>>> >> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> > ?
>>> >> > "Lenona" > wrote
>>> >> >>http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...documentid=276...
>>>
>>> >> >> Dear Miss Manners,
>>> >> >> Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the
>>> >> >> etiquette
>>> >> >> of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if
>>> >> >> it
>>> >> >> was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we
>>> >> >> are
>>> >> >> taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay.
>>>
>>> >> >> Gentle Reader,
>>> >> >> Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
>>> >> >> children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so
>>> >> >> and
>>> >> >> will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention.
>>> >> >> But
>>> >> >> even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
>>> >> >> issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a
>>> >> >> place
>>> >> >> that you can afford.
>>>
>>> >> > If I invite you as my guest, I pay
>>> >> > If you invite me as your guest, you pay
>>> >> > If friends say "do you want to go out to eat", we split it
>>>
>>> >> > As for paying for (adult) children, it pretty much applies the same
>>> >> > way
>>> >> > but can change with their finances. My son always pays though (his
>>> >> > choice) and can easily afford it.
>>>
>>> >> And if it is a date and he 'lets' you see what he is paying-he wants
>>> >> something more than just dinner.
>>>
>>> All normal brained females can see and tally the prices on the menu
>>> when they order... and even when someone places the order they gotta
>>> know that surf n' turf costs more than a burger w/fries.
>>>
>>> >If it is a date take it as a given that he wants something more than
>>> >dinner.
>>>
>>> Well duh, that's true when a women accepts a date... and it's just as
>>> likely it's the women who expects "something"... if all a women wants
>>> is to eat dinner then she'd go out with her girlfriends. A date with
>>> one man and one woman is by default a prelude to intimacy. Are you
>>> really so naive?
>>
>>==
>>"A prelude to intimacy" eh? Were it ever that simple a process. Women
>>are a lot more complicated than that...in my experience. It usually
>>takes more than a dinner date or two to know a person other than
>>superficially. On the other hand, there are those who by nature or by
>>circumstance are not as astute in their conduct and will drop their
>>drawers in a flash. My advice would be to avoid that type.
>
> What's wrong with knowing each other superficially... you want
> profound intellectual banter join a book club... you don't
> necessarilly need to get to know each other intellectually for high
> quality intimacy, why toss away a good mutually satisfing lay... you
> don't need to propose marriage. I think most people in long term
> relationships as the years pass grow apart more than they grow
> together... they live together is all but don't really know each other
> intellectually or intimately, why do you think more than half of all
> marriages fail? You most definitely are naive.

You are single, aren't you?

On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 06:12:22 -0500, "Kswck" >
wrote:

>
>"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 12:46:50 -0800 (PST), Roy >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 15, 10:21 am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 07:43:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >In article >,
>>>> >says...
>>>>
>>>> >> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> >> > ?
>>>> >> > "Lenona" > wrote
>>>> >> >>http://lifestyle.msn.com/relationshi...documentid=276...
>>>>
>>>> >> >> Dear Miss Manners,
>>>> >> >> Who should get the check? My question is in regards to the
>>>> >> >> etiquette
>>>> >> >> of getting the check at the end of the meal. I was raised that if
>>>> >> >> it
>>>> >> >> was not made very clear at the beginning (such as "don't worry we
>>>> >> >> are
>>>> >> >> taking you out"), to always make an effort to pay.
>>>>
>>>> >> >> Gentle Reader,
>>>> >> >> Yes, sometimes even parents. The long habit of paying for their
>>>> >> >> children often remains; many parents prefer to continue to do so
>>>> >> >> and
>>>> >> >> will make sure they win any such polite arguments as you mention.
>>>> >> >> But
>>>> >> >> even they will be flattered if you occasionally make a point of
>>>> >> >> issuing a clear invitation at which you are the hosts -- at a
>>>> >> >> place
>>>> >> >> that you can afford.
>>>>
>>>> >> > If I invite you as my guest, I pay
>>>> >> > If you invite me as your guest, you pay
>>>> >> > If friends say "do you want to go out to eat", we split it
>>>>
>>>> >> > As for paying for (adult) children, it pretty much applies the same
>>>> >> > way
>>>> >> > but can change with their finances. My son always pays though (his
>>>> >> > choice) and can easily afford it.
>>>>
>>>> >> And if it is a _DATE_ and he 'lets' you see what he is paying-he wants
>>>> >> something more than just dinner.
>>>>
>>>> All normal brained females can see and tally the prices on the menu
>>>> when they order... and even when someone places the order they gotta
>>>> know that surf n' turf costs more than a burger w/fries.
>>>>
>>>> >If it is a _DATE_ take it as a given that he wants something more than
>>>> >dinner.
>>>>
>>>> Well duh, that's true when a women accepts a _DATE_... and it's just as
>>>> likely it's the women who expects "something"... if all a women wants
>>>> is to eat dinner then she'd go out with her girlfriends. A _DATE_ with
>>>> one man and one woman is by default a prelude to intimacy. Are you
>>>> really so naive?
>>>
>>>==
>>>"A prelude to intimacy" eh? Were it ever that simple a process. Women
>>>are a lot more complicated than that...in my experience. It usually
>>>takes more than a dinner _DATE or two to know a person other than
>>>superficially. On the other hand, there are those who by nature or by
>>>circumstance are not as astute in their conduct and will drop their
>>>drawers in a flash. My advice would be to avoid that type.
>>
>> What's wrong with knowing each other superficially... you want
>> profound intellectual banter join a book club... you don't
>> necessarilly need to get to know each other intellectually for high
>> quality intimacy, why toss away a good mutually satisfing lay... you
>> don't need to propose marriage. I think most people in long term
>> relationships as the years pass grow apart more than they grow
>> together... they live together is all but don't really know each other
>> intellectually or intimately, why do you think more than half of all
>> marriages fail? You most definitely are naive.
>
>You are single, aren't you?

The context is DATING, dummkopf.