"George Leppla" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/18/2013 12:21 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> It's a clothing store chain, it is geared to younger people
>> and by that, I mean the thin, beautiful young people. They
>> don't carry over a size 10 and most of the stuff in the store
>> is much smaller.
>>
>> The CEO is on record for saying he only wants cool non-fat
>> people in his stores or wearing their clothing. I'm paraphrasing.
>
>
>
> I'm thinking of taking a lawn chair, buying a hoagie or two and having
> lunch in front of one of their stores. Maybe I'll take my shirt off and
> get some sun while I am at it. <vbg>
>
> FWIW... I don't give a rat's ass who they want to market to. What bugged
> me is that they burned/destroyed unsold garments rather than donate them
> to homeless shelters. Salvation Army, Goodwill... because they didn't want
> the "wrong" people wearing their brand.
>
> That sucks.

That is just terrible They really do deserve lose their business!

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 2013-05-18 17:12:38 +0000, Dave Smith said:

> On 18/05/2013 12:52 PM, sf wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>> I suspect that this show was one of the greatest reality tv TROLLS ever@
>>>>>
>>>>> Think about it... You have Gordon Ramsay and national television in your
>>>>> restaurant to prove that you are a great restaurant. Wouldn't you be on your
>>>>> best behavior for the show?
>>>>>
>>>>> But they were not. They did all the arrogant and bad things. Look at all
>>>>> the posts about the show. It's the most talked about ever. Negative
>>>>> attention is still attention.
>>>>
>>>> What was that old Hollywood saying - "Say anything you want about me
>>>> as long as you spell my name right"?
>>>
>>> True: But name-recognition isn't "customer loyalty".
>>
>> I don't think they are able to grasp that concept.
>
> I make it a practice not to buy from entitled crooks and jerks.

I got one step further, I think. I refuse to buy items or make
services from such folk even when I WANT what they have. As I've often
said, in a capitalist society you vote or deny a vote for someone or
some idea by paying or not paying for it.

> Let's be honest about these products. It is not as if the celebrities
> actually had anything to do with their design and manufacture. Someone
> just makes them an offer to use their name and reputation to flog them.
> If I think Martha Stewart I expect to see institutional sizes and the
> cooks to be wear florescent jump suit and for Gordon Ramsey I envision
> an obnoxious jerk hurling profane insults.

I don't get your comparison between Stewart and Ramsey. It's true that
his show's formula could provide a loving nanny-figure that commends
people for their incompetence or blames it on others, but I don't think
we'd get a sense of "turnaround" at the end.

No, we get a "crusty but benign"* drill sergeant enthusiastically
molding his wards into shape--without coddling and kisses--and turning
them into men. Only then are they given the embrace and reward. At
least that's their model.

It's true though, that every reality show features a real-life person
being assessed as if they were a stage actor, with requisite critiques
of their skill-set.

* Network, 1976

On 5/18/2013 1:29 PM, George Leppla wrote:
> On 5/18/2013 12:21 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> It's a clothing store chain, it is geared to younger people
>> and by that, I mean the thin, beautiful young people. They
>> don't carry over a size 10 and most of the stuff in the store
>> is much smaller.
>>
>> The CEO is on record for saying he only wants cool non-fat
>> people in his stores or wearing their clothing. I'm paraphrasing.
>
>
>
> I'm thinking of taking a lawn chair, buying a hoagie or two and having
> lunch in front of one of their stores. Maybe I'll take my shirt off and
> get some sun while I am at it. <vbg>

Heh. Hey, I'll do that too! Wait ...

It's the kind of store where they have loud unpleasant music that repels
old farts like me (who happens to like loud music, just not theirs).
As I walk by I think Don't worry, your graphic tees are safe from me!

> FWIW... I don't give a rat's ass who they want to market to.

Ditto. I don't know why it bothers people.

> What
> bugged me is that they burned/destroyed unsold garments rather than
> donate them to homeless shelters. Salvation Army, Goodwill... because
> they didn't want the "wrong" people wearing their brand.

I missed that. I haven't been following the story that closely. That's
obnoxious.

nancy

On 18/05/2013 1:21 PM, Nancy Young wrote:

>>> Ambercrombie and Fitch must be delighted!
>>
>> I had to look on line to see who that was, but there is no clue to
>> explain your remark. Do tell? )
>
> It's a clothing store chain, it is geared to younger people
> and by that, I mean the thin, beautiful young people. They
> don't carry over a size 10 and most of the stuff in the store
> is much smaller.
>
> The CEO is on record for saying he only wants cool non-fat
> people in his stores or wearing their clothing. I'm paraphrasing.
>
> I don't know what started all the uproar, I don't think the comments
> are new. The idea that some stores cater to skinnier people is no
> big secret, not all stores are all things to all people, but now it's
> got people demonstrating in front the the stores, giving away their
> A&F clothing. Some guy bought a lot of it and gave it away to homeless
> people.
>
> So, the CEO is trying to figure a way out of this mess. The bad
> publicity is not working for them.
>


He probably isn't worried about it. If he wasn't offering those extra
large sizes before it's not like he is going to lose any sales to the
people who need those sizes. Considering the crowd that he is marketing
his products to..... it is probably all positive for them to associate
their clothes with being slim and trim. Being able to git into
Abercrombie and Fitch clothes will be a form of status among those who
are attracted to designer label clothing.

On 18/05/2013 1:33 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2013-05-18, Dave Smith > wrote:
>
>> wear florescent jump suit and for Gordon Ramsey I envision an obnoxious
>> jerk hurling profane insults.
>
> I find it amusing so many see GR as the villian.

Maybe he has changed. I watched some of his programs a few years ago and
found him to be profane and abusive. He reminded me of a situation I
encountered many years ago when I helped out some friends who had opened
up a restaurant. A bunch of us were helping out and were working her and
there for free because we were good friends with one of them. The
other.... was a little harder to deal with. I was helping out in the
kitchen one night and he came n ranting and raving and carrying on
abusively. I didn't have to quit because I wasn't getting paid anyway,
but I walked out then and there.


He goes in,
> dispenses advice, spends thousands, all this on admitted losers
> requesting his help. And throughout it all, it's the owner's who are
> the real jerks. Arrogant, combative, dillusional, in denial, many
> insufferable assholes badly in need to a good blast to the chops. Yet
> GR is the jerk? I think the guy shows real restraint in the face of
> infuriating hubris. No doubt cuz he'd be sued silly if he acted on a
> normal persons response to such effrontery. My guess is he'd often
> like to hurl more than "profane insults". Jes once I'd love to see GR
> haul off and put some loudmouth loser's lights out.


It is really nothing more than a sort of "reality" show. They had
incredible losers they were dealing with. They must have gone out of
their way to find such bad operations, or else it was totally fictitious.

On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:38:10 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

>
>
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 5/18/2013 12:22 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> "Nancy Young" > wrote
> >
> >>> On 5/18/2013 10:27 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> >
> >>>> We have a saying, 'There is no such thing as bad publicity'
> >>>
> >>> Ambercrombie and Fitch must be delighted!
> >>
> >> I had to look on line to see who that was, but there is no clue to
> >> explain your remark. Do tell? )
> >
> > It's a clothing store chain, it is geared to younger people
> > and by that, I mean the thin, beautiful young people. They
> > don't carry over a size 10 and most of the stuff in the store
> > is much smaller.
> >
> > The CEO is on record for saying he only wants cool non-fat
> > people in his stores or wearing their clothing. I'm paraphrasing.
> >
> > I don't know what started all the uproar, I don't think the comments
> > are new. The idea that some stores cater to skinnier people is no
> > big secret, not all stores are all things to all people, but now it's
> > got people demonstrating in front the the stores, giving away their
> > A&F clothing. Some guy bought a lot of it and gave it away to homeless
> > people.
> >
> > So, the CEO is trying to figure a way out of this mess. The bad
> > publicity is not working for them.
>
> So it seems. I've never heard of anything like it!!! Hard to envisage
> ruling out such a huge percentage of possible customers! I would be
> surprised if we didn't have some shops with the similar views although I
> haven't heard of them. Heh, only the young and beautiful eh??? I guess
> that would rule me out too <g>
>
They only started focusing on that demographic in the last 15-20
years. Their customer base was considerably older before that.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 5/18/2013 4:01 AM, Julie Bove wrote:

> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> eb.com...

>> Exactly. I don't know of anyone who waits tables just to meet minimum wage
>> with salary + tips. It is usually much more than that in a decent place.
>> I waited tables for a few years back in my younger days when salary was
>> only about $2 or less per hour. Tips were the only way to make any money
>> at all. Tips could equal even more than $200 per day on good days.
>> Weekends even better.
>
> They do because they can't find another job.
>
>
I don't think that's true. If you find the right place the money can be
very good. Plenty of people work their way through college waiting tables.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> On 5/18/2013 4:01 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>> eb.com...
>
>>> Exactly. I don't know of anyone who waits tables just to meet minimum
>>> wage
>>> with salary + tips. It is usually much more than that in a decent
>>> place.
>>> I waited tables for a few years back in my younger days when salary was
>>> only about $2 or less per hour. Tips were the only way to make any
>>> money
>>> at all. Tips could equal even more than $200 per day on good days.
>>> Weekends even better.
>>
>> They do because they can't find another job.
>>
>>
> I don't think that's true. If you find the right place the money can be
> very good. Plenty of people work their way through college waiting
> tables.

Maybe jobs are plentiful where you are. They aren't here! Not that they
could get away with paying less than minimum wage here. But there are
plenty of people working 2 and 3 part time jobs just to make ends meet. And
plenty more underemployed and unemployed. This is one reason why my husband
had to move to NY. He is back here now and employed. But he got lucky.
Countless others are not so lucky. It's also unlikely that there would be
too many people out there who know all of the waterways that he does. Which
is why he got the job.

"gtr" > wrote in message news:2013051809115757241-xxx@yyyzzz...
> On 2013-05-18 14:34:50 +0000, Pico Rico said:
>
>> The restaurant was already getting bad reviews, so they had nothing to
>> loose and probably couldn't "un do" their bad reviews, given the nature
>> of this "reality" show. Might as well go for broke.
>
> That's kind of the model for the show. Restaurants (and owners/operators)
> get scathing reviews, and are losing money. Then Ramsey fixes their
> problems, re-introduces them to their community, and they are an unbridled
> success.
>
> Usually the "going for broke" aspect isn't about showing the world you
> don't care what your dining public thinks of your cooking. I don't think
> that's a winning approach to marketing.
>
> It certainly doesn't always take, but it's surprising how a little
> education--with a committed restaurateur--can turn things around.
> Frequently firing a lazy cook or trimming the menu down by a hundred
> items.
>
> Even better: *Convincing* them that fresh ingredients cooked to order will
> be substantially more *profitable* than frozen foods micro'd. Some think
> they are "saving money" this way and it almost makes sense if you take the
> eating aspect out of the calculation.

Why then do so many chain places do the frozen foods? Sure I can see some
stuff like green beans and French fries. But not everything.

On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:04:10 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

> On 5/18/2013 4:01 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> > "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> > eb.com...
>
> >> Exactly. I don't know of anyone who waits tables just to meet minimum wage
> >> with salary + tips. It is usually much more than that in a decent place.
> >> I waited tables for a few years back in my younger days when salary was
> >> only about $2 or less per hour. Tips were the only way to make any money
> >> at all. Tips could equal even more than $200 per day on good days.
> >> Weekends even better.
> >
> > They do because they can't find another job.
> >
> >
> I don't think that's true. If you find the right place the money can be
> very good. Plenty of people work their way through college waiting tables.

Plenty of people make it a career. The restaurant takes care of them
and they're good at their job. I know lots of restaurants where I see
the same faces year after year, decade after decade.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 18/05/2013 1:33 PM, notbob wrote:
>> On 2013-05-18, Dave Smith > wrote:
>>
>>> wear florescent jump suit and for Gordon Ramsey I envision an obnoxious
>>> jerk hurling profane insults.
>>
>> I find it amusing so many see GR as the villian.
>
> Maybe he has changed. I watched some of his programs a few years ago and
> found him to be profane and abusive. He reminded me of a situation I
> encountered many years ago when I helped out some friends who had opened
> up a restaurant. A bunch of us were helping out and were working her and
> there for free because we were good friends with one of them. The
> other.... was a little harder to deal with. I was helping out in the
> kitchen one night and he came n ranting and raving and carrying on
> abusively. I didn't have to quit because I wasn't getting paid anyway, but
> I walked out then and there.
>
Yes he very much has changed. At first, I preferred to watch Robert
Irvine's show over his because Irvine was nicer. But Ramsey is very much
toned down now at least on this show. Perhaps not on Hell's Kitchen but I
rarely seem to catch that one any more. Must be on at a time when I am not
home.

> It is really nothing more than a sort of "reality" show. They had
> incredible losers they were dealing with. They must have gone out of their
> way to find such bad operations, or else it was totally fictitious.

They're not always incredible losers. I saw one the other day, but it was
actually Irvine's where the food for the most part wasn't bad at all and
actually some of it was quite good. But the owners had no good business
sense. First they had been undercharging for the food. They then realized
this and kept raising the prices to the point where some of the items were
overpriced and some were still underpriced. They were also giving away
large portions of bread and huge salads for free and often these came back
uneaten. Robert said it wasn't a good business practice to give salad away
for free. Odd, because many places here do in fact do that. Tonight, I had
the choice of soup or salad. I had the soup and got a very small cup. Had
I opted for the salad (which I usually do) it would have been a small plate.
The place on the show was giving away salads five times that size! Some
places give away free desserts as well but someone posted on my Facebook
last night something about getting excited because you're getting free
dessert and then feeling letdown because the choices are Jell-O or rice
pudding. Usually when you do get a free thing like that it is a small
thing. But often in the case of the salad they will let you upgrade to a
larger one for a small price. Or... The salad is not free but you can add
it for an additional small price.

Anyway... This particular place didn't seem too off base. Just could use
some freshening up in the decor and a better understanding of what prices to
charge. Always astounds me to see people who open a restaurant but have no
clue of where to buy the food (have seen some where they buy retail on a
regular basis) or what prices to charge. I learned this sort of stuff in
high school.

"gtr" > wrote in message news:2013051809064348718-xxx@yyyzzz...
> The "no one that's mentioned this" has mentioned this about 10 times
> already in this thread. But it's certainly a screwy idea that people might
> like to go to lousy places because bad food in hostile environments is
> "funny". I have my doubts that this will keep them open for too much
> longer.

I did go to that pizza place in Lynnwood because I had heard about how
hostile the owner was. The food was actually good. But he sure didn't want
to serve the white pizza!

When I was a kid/teen, we used to have a place here called Henry's. Nowhere
on the sign did it have that name. That was just the owner's name so we
referred to it as such. In fact I don't think there was a sign at all on
the front but on the side it said something like Sunshine Sundries and Ice
Cream. This guy had a bad reputation. I only went in there once (had been
told not to) only because there was some kind of emergency. Can't remember
what. He was nice then. But he was anything but nice when my dad went in
here.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:04:10 -0400, Cheryl >
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2013 4:01 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> > "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>> > eb.com...
>>
>> >> Exactly. I don't know of anyone who waits tables just to meet minimum
>> >> wage
>> >> with salary + tips. It is usually much more than that in a decent
>> >> place.
>> >> I waited tables for a few years back in my younger days when salary
>> >> was
>> >> only about $2 or less per hour. Tips were the only way to make any
>> >> money
>> >> at all. Tips could equal even more than $200 per day on good days.
>> >> Weekends even better.
>> >
>> > They do because they can't find another job.
>> >
>> >
>> I don't think that's true. If you find the right place the money can be
>> very good. Plenty of people work their way through college waiting
>> tables.
>
> Plenty of people make it a career. The restaurant takes care of them
> and they're good at their job. I know lots of restaurants where I see
> the same faces year after year, decade after decade.

That's not what I meant. I meant if a person took a low paying job, it
would be because they could get no other. And in this economy it is because
there are no other jobs in that area. But they need some kind of job to
generate income. My friend who waits tables and also helps with the
catering has done it all of her life. Why? Because it is what she likes to
do. But it is a very low paying job for her. And from what she has told me
that is the going wage there. I can't remember what she said but something
like just over $2 an hour. That's in TX. I also think TX is hurting in the
job community. I have another friend who is in college now and recently
rejoiced because he got a job at Wal-Mart. I realize this is not something
most people would rejoice about but he has been trying for years to get some
job, any job. And he finally got one. Another friend in TX got a job a few
years ago for the school district. She said that she dislikes the job and
it wasn't what she was looking for but the pay is good so she will keep it.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 5/18/2013 10:27 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gary" > wrote
>>
>>>> I suspect this show was a great marketing thing for the restaurant.
>>>> They
>>>> are not going to close down. They will probably prosper after this
>>>> airing.
>>>> Local and visiting people will go there just "to see for themselves"
>>>> what
>>>> it's like.
>>>
>>> We have a saying, 'There is no such thing as bad publicity'
>>
>> Ambercrombie and Fitch must be delighted!
>
> I had to look on line to see who that was, but there is no clue to explain
> your remark. Do tell? )

The big stink now is that they don't want fat women to wear their clothes.
They didn't phrase it as such but said that there are just some people who
shouldn't wear them. They sell women's clothes up to size L and refuse to
make them bigger. But they sell men's clothes up to size XL. And I could
be wrong on this but I think their clothes run small sizewise as well. I
did look them up some time ago and realized that neither my daughter nor I
would fit into them.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/18/2013 12:22 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote
>
>>> On 5/18/2013 10:27 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>>>> We have a saying, 'There is no such thing as bad publicity'
>>>
>>> Ambercrombie and Fitch must be delighted!
>>
>> I had to look on line to see who that was, but there is no clue to
>> explain your remark. Do tell? )
>
> It's a clothing store chain, it is geared to younger people
> and by that, I mean the thin, beautiful young people. They
> don't carry over a size 10 and most of the stuff in the store
> is much smaller.
>
> The CEO is on record for saying he only wants cool non-fat
> people in his stores or wearing their clothing. I'm paraphrasing.
>
> I don't know what started all the uproar, I don't think the comments
> are new. The idea that some stores cater to skinnier people is no
> big secret, not all stores are all things to all people, but now it's
> got people demonstrating in front the the stores, giving away their
> A&F clothing. Some guy bought a lot of it and gave it away to homeless
> people.
>
> So, the CEO is trying to figure a way out of this mess. The bad
> publicity is not working for them.
>
> nancy

When I was a teen, we had a shop called 579. Not sure if they are still
there. They were recommended to me when we couldn't find a bra to fit me.
I was pathetically skinny and in those days, the standard women's size was
usually an 8. This store purportedly sold smaller sizes. But not small
enough for me! These days they go down to a 0 or 00. I also realize that
whatever number is sold these days is far larger proportionally than it was
in the 1970's. They say now that the average American woman wears a 14. A
few years ago, I found a pair of my pants from high school in the rag drawer
at my parent's house. They were labeled as a 14. They were tiny! Today's
size 14 is much larger. I know because we do have some pants of that size
here. Not mine. I wish!

I don't think the issue is necessarily with them not selling larger sizes.
But the fact that they said they won't want people like me wearing their
clothing. More and more clothing companies are expanding their sizes.
About a year ago, I couldn't shop at Chico's. Their clothes only went up to
the size below what I wear. But now they not only sell my size but some
things one size larger. Granted, they don't make everything in my size.
But that's probably a good thing! I do think certain styles look better on
certain body types and sizes.

Look at all the flak that Kim Kardashian is getting these days. People are
calling her fat. She's not fat. She's pregnant. The problem? She's
trying to wear clothes as if she were not pregnant. And that generally
doesn't work. When I was pregnant I said to myself that I would never wear
maternity clothes. Thought I could get away with just wearing a size up.
And I could for a while but then the day came when I had no choice. The
pregnant shape is just not such that a larger size will be flattering after
a while. Because with a larger size, they assume that your arms and legs
are bigger around. And that doesn't necessarily happen when you are
pregnant. For me it was the belly and boobies that got bigger. And then my
feet and ankles. Terrible swelling. When I went up to a larger sized
pants, I looked like I was swimming in them because there was so much
fabric. But maternity pants in my size had the expandable middle but they
were more form fitting in the legs.

I once had a beautiful gauze tunic with sequins and beads on it. I got tons
of compliments everywhere I went, until I lost some weight and then I was
swimming in it too. My mom told me to stop wearing it because it was no
longer flattering on it. Fine. No longer have it. But when it fit, the
owner of my health food store that is no longer there, asked me where I got
it because she wanted one. I told her that it wouldn't work for her because
I got it at a store that only sold larger sizes. She still persisted saying
she wasn't all that small. True. Tall and not tiny but not sure this would
have fit her. This place sells size 12 and up but I still think she was
smaller than that. So it can work both ways.

Now if Abercrombie wanted to smart about this, they could come out with a
totally new line for larger people and put some other name on it. The
clothing could be similar. But I suppose some people would still bitch.

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/18/2013 12:22 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote
>
>>> On 5/18/2013 10:27 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>>>> We have a saying, 'There is no such thing as bad publicity'
>>>
>>> Ambercrombie and Fitch must be delighted!
>>
>> I had to look on line to see who that was, but there is no clue to
>> explain your remark. Do tell? )
>
> It's a clothing store chain, it is geared to younger people
> and by that, I mean the thin, beautiful young people. They
> don't carry over a size 10 and most of the stuff in the store
> is much smaller.
>
> The CEO is on record for saying he only wants cool non-fat
> people in his stores or wearing their clothing. I'm paraphrasing.
>
> I don't know what started all the uproar, I don't think the comments
> are new. The idea that some stores cater to skinnier people is no
> big secret, not all stores are all things to all people, but now it's
> got people demonstrating in front the the stores, giving away their
> A&F clothing. Some guy bought a lot of it and gave it away to homeless
> people.
>
> So, the CEO is trying to figure a way out of this mess. The bad
> publicity is not working for them.
>
> nancy

I heard of it a while back from my niece who wears a larger size. She said
some people had written to them and asked them if they could start carrying
larger sizes and that is what happened.

"George Leppla" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/18/2013 12:21 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> It's a clothing store chain, it is geared to younger people
>> and by that, I mean the thin, beautiful young people. They
>> don't carry over a size 10 and most of the stuff in the store
>> is much smaller.
>>
>> The CEO is on record for saying he only wants cool non-fat
>> people in his stores or wearing their clothing. I'm paraphrasing.
>
>
>
> I'm thinking of taking a lawn chair, buying a hoagie or two and having
> lunch in front of one of their stores. Maybe I'll take my shirt off and
> get some sun while I am at it. <vbg>
>
> FWIW... I don't give a rat's ass who they want to market to. What bugged
> me is that they burned/destroyed unsold garments rather than donate them
> to homeless shelters. Salvation Army, Goodwill... because they didn't want
> the "wrong" people wearing their brand.
>
> That sucks.
>
> George L

I didn't know that they did that! I do see a lot of teens and young adults
wearing their stuff and to me it doesn't look all that great. People get
sold on a name. I know how to look for quality in clothes. There was a
time when my daughter wanted to wear Old Navy stuff. Yes, their stuff is
cheap. But it's also cheaply made and it doesn't wash well. I did let her
have some of it but it had to be clearance stuff and only a few pieces
because I knew that it wouldn't last. And after seeing how it washed up,
she never asked for it again.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
> So it seems. I've never heard of anything like it!!! Hard to envisage
> ruling out such a huge percentage of possible customers! I would be
> surprised if we didn't have some shops with the similar views although I
> haven't heard of them. Heh, only the young and beautiful eh??? I guess
> that would rule me out too <g>
>
> Thanks for explaining, Nancy!

Some designers do that by default by pricing their things so highly and only
allowing certain stores to sell them that us regular people could never
afford them. Used to be a store in downtown Seattle that was purported to
put people out if they looked like they didn't belong in there. Turned out
not to be true but I'll bet it kept a lot of people out of there. My friend
and I ventured in there quite warily. We were dressed as nicely as we could
be given what we had in our closets because prior to going in there, we
attended a fashion show in the Nordsrtom cafe. Not only did the security
guard let us into the store, but we got on the elevator, went upstairs and
looked around. We did have to leave when we got into the shoe department
though. In those days I wore a perfectly average size and had no foot
problems. So shoes were my downfall. They had the most gorgeous shoes but
they started at around $300 per pair. And in those days I was accustomed to
spending around $50-90 per pair a Nordstrom's for good (although not
designer) shoes. So totally out of my budget.

However more and more designers are being nice and coming out with things
that the average person can buy and also in larger sizes. I have gone wild
for some of Jason Wu's things that Target sells and also some of the
Missoni. Always loved Missoni and they have their standard zigzagging
patterns even on the cheaper things. The problem? You have to get there
the minute they are put on the sales floor and that pretty much means
knowing someone who works there that will tell you when that is. Haven't
been able to buy any yet. But I still try.

On 5/19/2013 1:23 AM, Julie Bove wrote:

> Maybe jobs are plentiful where you are. They aren't here! Not that they
> could get away with paying less than minimum wage here. But there are
> plenty of people working 2 and 3 part time jobs just to make ends meet. And
> plenty more underemployed and unemployed. This is one reason why my husband
> had to move to NY. He is back here now and employed. But he got lucky.
> Countless others are not so lucky. It's also unlikely that there would be
> too many people out there who know all of the waterways that he does. Which
> is why he got the job.

But all that has nothing to do with your statement that people only wait
tables because they can't find any other job.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

On 5/19/2013 1:31 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:04:10 -0400, Cheryl >
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2013 4:01 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>>> eb.com...
>>
>>>> Exactly. I don't know of anyone who waits tables just to meet minimum wage
>>>> with salary + tips. It is usually much more than that in a decent place.
>>>> I waited tables for a few years back in my younger days when salary was
>>>> only about $2 or less per hour. Tips were the only way to make any money
>>>> at all. Tips could equal even more than $200 per day on good days.
>>>> Weekends even better.
>>>
>>> They do because they can't find another job.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't think that's true. If you find the right place the money can be
>> very good. Plenty of people work their way through college waiting tables.
>
> Plenty of people make it a career. The restaurant takes care of them
> and they're good at their job. I know lots of restaurants where I see
> the same faces year after year, decade after decade.
>

True, and again nothing to do with Julie's statement that they do it
because they can't find another job.


--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> On 5/19/2013 1:23 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> Maybe jobs are plentiful where you are. They aren't here! Not that they
>> could get away with paying less than minimum wage here. But there are
>> plenty of people working 2 and 3 part time jobs just to make ends meet.
>> And
>> plenty more underemployed and unemployed. This is one reason why my
>> husband
>> had to move to NY. He is back here now and employed. But he got lucky.
>> Countless others are not so lucky. It's also unlikely that there would
>> be
>> too many people out there who know all of the waterways that he does.
>> Which
>> is why he got the job.
>
> But all that has nothing to do with your statement that people only wait
> tables because they can't find any other job.

That is *not* what I said! I said they only take a low paying job because
they can get no other. We were not just talking of waiting tables. We were
talking of waiting tables for a low wage. Here, that would not happen.
Not legally anyway. Wait staff is well paid.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> On 5/19/2013 1:31 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:04:10 -0400, Cheryl >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/18/2013 4:01 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>>>> eb.com...
>>>
>>>>> Exactly. I don't know of anyone who waits tables just to meet minimum
>>>>> wage
>>>>> with salary + tips. It is usually much more than that in a decent
>>>>> place.
>>>>> I waited tables for a few years back in my younger days when salary
>>>>> was
>>>>> only about $2 or less per hour. Tips were the only way to make any
>>>>> money
>>>>> at all. Tips could equal even more than $200 per day on good days.
>>>>> Weekends even better.
>>>>
>>>> They do because they can't find another job.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I don't think that's true. If you find the right place the money can be
>>> very good. Plenty of people work their way through college waiting
>>> tables.
>>
>> Plenty of people make it a career. The restaurant takes care of them
>> and they're good at their job. I know lots of restaurants where I see
>> the same faces year after year, decade after decade.
>>
>
> True, and again nothing to do with Julie's statement that they do it
> because they can't find another job.

Again. That is *not* what I said. We were talking of low paying jobs. Or
I was anyway. Here, waiting tables is not a low paying job. This is what I
was referring to:

"Exactly. I don't know of anyone who waits tables just to meet minimum wage
with salary + tips."

You said that you don't know of anyone who does that. But some people do.
Not here. But they do in some places. And I gave the reason why.

On 5/19/2013 3:51 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
> eb.com...
>> On 5/19/2013 1:23 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe jobs are plentiful where you are. They aren't here! Not that they
>>> could get away with paying less than minimum wage here. But there are
>>> plenty of people working 2 and 3 part time jobs just to make ends meet.
>>> And
>>> plenty more underemployed and unemployed. This is one reason why my
>>> husband
>>> had to move to NY. He is back here now and employed. But he got lucky.
>>> Countless others are not so lucky. It's also unlikely that there would
>>> be
>>> too many people out there who know all of the waterways that he does.
>>> Which
>>> is why he got the job.
>>
>> But all that has nothing to do with your statement that people only wait
>> tables because they can't find any other job.
>
> That is *not* what I said! I said they only take a low paying job because
> they can get no other. We were not just talking of waiting tables. We were
> talking of waiting tables for a low wage. Here, that would not happen.
> Not legally anyway. Wait staff is well paid.
>
>
I can quote it if you don't remember.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
eb.com...
> On 5/19/2013 3:51 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>> "Cheryl" > wrote in message
>> eb.com...
>>> On 5/19/2013 1:23 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe jobs are plentiful where you are. They aren't here! Not that
>>>> they
>>>> could get away with paying less than minimum wage here. But there are
>>>> plenty of people working 2 and 3 part time jobs just to make ends meet.
>>>> And
>>>> plenty more underemployed and unemployed. This is one reason why my
>>>> husband
>>>> had to move to NY. He is back here now and employed. But he got
>>>> lucky.
>>>> Countless others are not so lucky. It's also unlikely that there would
>>>> be
>>>> too many people out there who know all of the waterways that he does.
>>>> Which
>>>> is why he got the job.
>>>
>>> But all that has nothing to do with your statement that people only wait
>>> tables because they can't find any other job.
>>
>> That is *not* what I said! I said they only take a low paying job
>> because
>> they can get no other. We were not just talking of waiting tables. We
>> were
>> talking of waiting tables for a low wage. Here, that would not happen.
>> Not legally anyway. Wait staff is well paid.
>>
>>
> I can quote it if you don't remember.

I do remember. I was replying to something that isn't even here. It had to
do with someone, I think it was you, saying that they didn't know anyone who
would take a job that with tips would equate to minimum wage or something
like that. I was saying that they would only take such a low paying job if
they could not get any other job. And that is the case in some areas. I do
know some people who have had to do things like that.

"Julie Bove" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 5/18/2013 10:27 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Gary" > wrote
>>>
>>>>> I suspect this show was a great marketing thing for the restaurant.
>>>>> They
>>>>> are not going to close down. They will probably prosper after this
>>>>> airing.
>>>>> Local and visiting people will go there just "to see for themselves"
>>>>> what
>>>>> it's like.
>>>>
>>>> We have a saying, 'There is no such thing as bad publicity'
>>>
>>> Ambercrombie and Fitch must be delighted!
>>
>> I had to look on line to see who that was, but there is no clue to
>> explain your remark. Do tell? )
>
> The big stink now is that they don't want fat women to wear their clothes.
> They didn't phrase it as such but said that there are just some people who
> shouldn't wear them. They sell women's clothes up to size L and refuse to
> make them bigger. But they sell men's clothes up to size XL. And I could
> be wrong on this but I think their clothes run small sizewise as well. I
> did look them up some time ago and realized that neither my daughter nor I
> would fit into them.

So, are they still open and selling well?

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Julie Bove" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 5/18/2013 10:27 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gary" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect this show was a great marketing thing for the restaurant.
>>>>>> They
>>>>>> are not going to close down. They will probably prosper after this
>>>>>> airing.
>>>>>> Local and visiting people will go there just "to see for themselves"
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> it's like.
>>>>>
>>>>> We have a saying, 'There is no such thing as bad publicity'
>>>>
>>>> Ambercrombie and Fitch must be delighted!
>>>
>>> I had to look on line to see who that was, but there is no clue to
>>> explain your remark. Do tell? )
>>
>> The big stink now is that they don't want fat women to wear their
>> clothes.
>> They didn't phrase it as such but said that there are just some people
>> who
>> shouldn't wear them. They sell women's clothes up to size L and refuse
>> to
>> make them bigger. But they sell men's clothes up to size XL. And I
>> could
>> be wrong on this but I think their clothes run small sizewise as well. I
>> did look them up some time ago and realized that neither my daughter nor
>> I
>> would fit into them.
>
> So, are they still open and selling well?

Still open but don't know if selling well. I don't follow these things.

On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:31:54 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:




>
>Look at all the flak that Kim Kardashian is getting these days. People are
>calling her fat. She's not fat. She's pregnant. The problem? She's
>trying to wear clothes as if she were not pregnant.

Yeah, but she was born with a big ass. She has no control over that.
Nor should she be criticized for it but yet she is.

On 5/19/2013 4:17 AM, Cheryl wrote:
> On 5/19/2013 3:51 AM, Julie Bove wrote:

>> That is *not* what I said! I said they only take a low paying job
>> because
>> they can get no other. We were not just talking of waiting tables.
>> We were
>> talking of waiting tables for a low wage. Here, that would not happen.
>> Not legally anyway. Wait staff is well paid.
>>
>>
> I can quote it if you don't remember.

In which of the United States are they required to pay wait staff
minimum wage?

nancy

On 5/19/2013 1:31 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:04:10 -0400, Cheryl >
> wrote:

>> I don't think that's true. If you find the right place the money can be
>> very good. Plenty of people work their way through college waiting tables.
>
> Plenty of people make it a career. The restaurant takes care of them
> and they're good at their job. I know lots of restaurants where I see
> the same faces year after year, decade after decade.

Ditto. And when they leave, if you ask, the other staff will tell you
what restaurant they went to and you can find them working there.

These are not people who couldn't find success in another field because
they lack intelligence or education. They got into it, they like it
and they are paying their bills, having families, just like everyone
else.

nancy

On 5/19/2013 8:06 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
> In which of the United States are they required to pay wait staff
> minimum wage?
>
> nancy
>
For *tipped* employees it depends on if you're going by the Federal
minimum wage or individual states. The Federal minimum wage for tipped
employees is *still* a measly $2.13/hr. Yet in Alaska, for example, the
wage for tipped employees is $7.75/hr. In California, $8/hr. That's
higher than the Federal minimum wage for non-tipped employees.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm

In Arizona, where the Amy's Bakery bozos are located, the tipped wage is
$4.80/hr. You can't convince me they've been paying servers $8 -
$15/hour which is what they claim on their FB page.

Jill

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:01:38 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:



>>
>I'm not going to dispute any of that. The discussion is really about
>the scumbag owners stealing tips. It doesn't matter what they pay the
>servers, the tips belong to them, not to the owner.
>
>Jill

That I agree on. Even if he paid $50 an hour, a tip for the staff
belongs to them.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 11:45:36 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

> So, are they still open and selling well?

They are marketing to a certain demographic and are doing well within
it. The problem is that they've limited themselves to a market that's
too narrow (ages 18-22)... it's the same problem as before - just a
different set of customers.

Automobile manufacturers are smart. They introduce their cars at low
prices with basic features . As that customer base matures, it wants
and can afford more bells & whistles, so they're added. Then a newer
model backfills at the beginner level. Abercrombie & Fitch needs to
take a long, hard look at that business model and learn. You don't
throw loyal customers away, you accommodate their maturing tastes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...mbie_%26_Fitch

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 11:45:36 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>> So, are they still open and selling well?
>
> They are marketing to a certain demographic and are doing well within
> it. The problem is that they've limited themselves to a market that's
> too narrow (ages 18-22)... it's the same problem as before - just a
> different set of customers.
>
> Automobile manufacturers are smart. They introduce their cars at low
> prices with basic features . As that customer base matures, it wants
> and can afford more bells & whistles, so they're added. Then a newer
> model backfills at the beginner level. Abercrombie & Fitch needs to
> take a long, hard look at that business model and learn. You don't
> throw loyal customers away, you accommodate their maturing tastes.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...mbie_%26_Fitch

Sounds crazy to me.

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On Sat, 18 May 2013 23:15:54 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> My friend who waits tables and also helps with the
> catering has done it all of her life. Why? Because it is what she likes to
> do. But it is a very low paying job for her. And from what she has told me
> that is the going wage there. I can't remember what she said but something
> like just over $2 an hour.

Being a hotel banquet waiter can be quite a lucrative career... as is
being a banquet bartender. The name of the game is "tips".

> That's in TX. I also think TX is hurting in the job community.

Texas has no income tax and low business taxes, so they're not hurting
for jobs. Manufacturing is moving to the South in general because of
less regulation and lower cost of living aka: wages. The rest of us
are supposed to ignore that those states have the Walmart mentality
and always put their hands out to the Federal government whenever
there's a problem.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:09:50 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

> These are not people who couldn't find success in another field because
> they lack intelligence or education. They got into it, they like it
> and they are paying their bills, having families, just like everyone
> else.

One waiter I like at a certain restaurant was in college a few years
ago, said he was studying to be an architect. I finally asked him why
he was still working as a waiter and I forget his exact answer, but
basically he faced reality. Long story short, waiting tables nets him
the same and probably more than he envisioned himself ever making as a
salaried, run of the mill, architect... and he likes the job.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 08:06:41 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

> On 5/19/2013 4:17 AM, Cheryl wrote:
> > On 5/19/2013 3:51 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> >> That is *not* what I said! I said they only take a low paying job
> >> because
> >> they can get no other. We were not just talking of waiting tables.
> >> We were
> >> talking of waiting tables for a low wage. Here, that would not happen.
> >> Not legally anyway. Wait staff is well paid.
> >>
> >>
> > I can quote it if you don't remember.
>
> In which of the United States are they required to pay wait staff
> minimum wage?
>

http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/tipped.htm

Minimum wage by state
http://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/america.htm
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...age-chart.aspx

Cities can set their own minimum wage requirements, so San Francisco
http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Rest...rancisco%2C+CA
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/articl...-S-2435465.php

Some are also entitled to health benefits, but restaurants played fast
and loose with that, collecting money from customers and then
pocketing it.
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/01...ud-restaurants


--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 10:01:38 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

> The discussion is really about
> the scumbag owners stealing tips. It doesn't matter what they pay the
> servers, the tips belong to them, not to the owner.

Ditto.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:35:29 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:

> > You don't
> > throw loyal customers away, you accommodate their maturing tastes.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...mbie_%26_Fitch
>
> Sounds crazy to me.
>
Which is why they are struggling.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 19 May 2013 16:35:29 +0100, "Ophelia"
> > wrote:
>
>> > You don't
>> > throw loyal customers away, you accommodate their maturing tastes.
>> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...mbie_%26_Fitch
>>
>> Sounds crazy to me.
>>
> Which is why they are struggling.

I bet it comes as a surprise to them ...


--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 2013-05-19, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> Yeah, but she was born with a big ass. She has no control over that.

It didn't hinder JayLo. That woman has enough back for a party of
three!

nb