"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/22/2014 8:59 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2014-05-22 8:21 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 5/22/2014 1:46 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Upon further reflection, I'd probably have the chicken. I don't care
>>>>> for jerk, but who knows, maybe I'd change my mind.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've only been to a couple of no-booze weddings. I don't think
>>>>> they're very common in a lot of areas.
>>>>
>>>> Most of the weddings I've been to were no booze. I was raised
>>>> Methodist
>>>> and they don't drink. Or they're not supposed to anyway...
>>>
>>> First I've heard of that. My mom was raised Methodist and there was
>>> definitely no prohibition against alcohol. I've got a pic of Grandma
>>> holding a beer at Mom & Dad's (decidedly casual) wedding reception.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Methodists used to be very strongly opposed to the consumption of
>> alcohol.
>>
> Used to be... how long ago? My parents were raised during the Depression.
> Grandpa brewed beer in the basement, started during Prohibition and
> continued throughout the Depression. That's a long time ago in my book.
>
>
And my dad made wine. But I was told that drinking was not allowed.
Neither was smoking.

"James Silverton" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/22/2014 9:42 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 5/22/2014 8:59 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2014-05-22 8:21 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/2014 1:46 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Upon further reflection, I'd probably have the chicken. I don't care
>>>>>> for jerk, but who knows, maybe I'd change my mind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've only been to a couple of no-booze weddings. I don't think
>>>>>> they're very common in a lot of areas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of the weddings I've been to were no booze. I was raised
>>>>> Methodist
>>>>> and they don't drink. Or they're not supposed to anyway...
>>>>
>>>> First I've heard of that. My mom was raised Methodist and there was
>>>> definitely no prohibition against alcohol. I've got a pic of Grandma
>>>> holding a beer at Mom & Dad's (decidedly casual) wedding reception.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Methodists used to be very strongly opposed to the consumption of
>>> alcohol.
>>>
>> Used to be... how long ago? My parents were raised during the
>> Depression. Grandpa brewed beer in the basement, started during
>> Prohibition and continued throughout the Depression. That's a long time
>> ago in my book.
>>
>
> I had not been inside a Methodist church previously when I was asked to be
> an usher at a friend's Methodist wedding many years ago. I was
> disappointed to find no alcohol at the reception, being unaware of the
> prohibition. Fortunately, a number of the bride's relatives knew this and
> brought flasks that they shared.

This is the official stance:

http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1755

However... I do know a great many Methodists who do drink.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 May 2014 09:56:13 -0400, James Silverton
> > wrote:
>
>> I had not been inside a Methodist church previously when I was asked to
>> be an usher at a friend's Methodist wedding many years ago. I was
>> disappointed to find no alcohol at the reception, being unaware of the
>> prohibition. Fortunately, a number of the bride's relatives knew this
>> and brought flasks that they shared.
>
> That's not uncommon for wedding receptions held on church property.
> They don't want to be sued when some drunk takes a tumble and hurts
> himself. An alcohol free reception is also budget friendly. Not
> everyone wants to take out a second mortgage on the house just to
> entertain people, half of whom are strangers, for a few hours.
>
I have also been to some receptions that had alcohol but if you wanted it,
you had to pay for it out of your own pocket. I found that rather tacky.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 22 May 2014 05:46:10 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On 5/22/2014 1:46 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >>> Upon further reflection, I'd probably have the chicken. I don't care
>> >>> for jerk, but who knows, maybe I'd change my mind.
>> >>>
>> >>> I've only been to a couple of no-booze weddings. I don't think
>> >>> they're very common in a lot of areas.
>> >>
>> >> Most of the weddings I've been to were no booze. I was raised
>> >> Methodist
>> >> and they don't drink. Or they're not supposed to anyway...
>> >
>> > First I've heard of that. My mom was raised Methodist and there was
>> > definitely no prohibition against alcohol. I've got a pic of Grandma
>> > holding a beer at Mom & Dad's (decidedly casual) wedding reception.
>> >
>> I guess it depends on the church. The one we went to in Wichita required
>> my
>> parents to sign a card each week. No drinking and no dancing. I didn't
>> get
>> this at all because my parents did drink and I danced. They also went
>> dancing from time to time.
>
> Sounds more like Jehovah's Witness than Methodist and card signing is
> more like AA than church. Are you absolutely sure the card they
> signed wasn't a tithe card?
>>
>> There was no such card signed here but at our communion we only had grape
>> juice as wine wasn't allowed.
>
> It reflects our Puritan past... and possibly a minister who is aware
> of parishioners who have problems with alcohol and doesn't want to
> temp them in church.
>
>> I do realize that many people did drink.
>> Heck, even one of the pastors drank whiskey. This is one reason why I
>> just
>> can't get into religion. The do as I say sort of thing.
>
> I won't bother to ask.

No need. I have just seen too many things over the years that make me
anti-religion. I'm sure you have seen some things like that on the news.
In this case it was at a Young Life meeting. Not even sure who runs the
thing but a friend who is now a Methodist minister begged me to go. I just
couldn't get into it because it was like teens divided into teams and doing
silly things like seeing who could unroll a roll of toilet paper first. The
winner won a plunger. That was not my idea of a good time so I began poking
around in the kitchen. My friend's dad (the pastor) was in there taking a
slug of whiskey. He then offered me some and said that it was the only
thing that kept him sane. I was only 15 at the time. I just kind of did
one of those like...Ima pretend that I just didn't see that...and walked
out.

There were plenty of other things that I saw and heard about in that church
an things that I saw from others all around me that just left a bad taste in
my mouth.

I try to be kind to other people and animals. I try to be helpful.. I give
to the food bank. Stuff like that. I try not to break laws. And I try to
do the right thing.

I just very much dislike people who claim to be doing things like this and
yet are not doing the right thing. Like having affairs, stealing, cheating
on tests, etc. All the while claiming to be somehow holier than you are.
Anyway... That's enough about that.

"Doris Night" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 21 May 2014 19:49:19 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>I would think a lot of people wouldn't like jerk chicken. I've never
>>tried
>>it. Doesn't sound appealing. I technically could eat sweet and sour but
>>it's by far not a favorite food. Although if the bride and groom like
>>these
>>things or they know the family or friends or whatever like it then I guess
>>it would be fine.
>
> Jerk chicken is amazing. The times I've been in the Caribbean, I
> couldn't get enough of it.
>
> I make chicken pieces with a similar spice profile, but it isn't real
> Jamaican BBQ.
>

I guess it depends on the flavor profile that you like. For whatever
reason, I prefer Mexican seasonings. I like some Italian things, a very few
Chinese things, and hummus. That's probably it for me.

I grew up eating mostly Midwestern foods with not a lot of seasonings. We
had chili powder in our Spaghetti Red but that was about as spicy as we ever
got. How I glommed onto the Mexican flavor profile is beyond me but I did
so at an early age. Tastes like heaven to me!

"Moe DeLoughan" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/21/2014 2:10 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 May 2014 13:54:11 -0500, Janet Wilder wrote:
>>
>>> I would switch either the jerk chicken or the sweet and sour pork for
>>> something else. Both are very unique flavors and don't quite go
>>> together. Remember, at a buffet, people are going to load their plates
>>> with a little of everything.
>>
>> I've been in a situation where the vegetarians, all 2 of them out of
>> about 30 people, had a shit fit because the omnivores were eating
>> "their" food from the buffet.
>
> Having catered in those situations, I had a shit fit, too, because the
> omnivores had ample foods to fill their plates with, and yet they insisted
> on taking the expensive meat entrees *and* the expensive vegetarian
> alternative. That gets very expensive, and the few guests who could only
> eat that one thing are understandably angry when other people beat them to
> it. It's a tough scenario - trying to provide an alternative entree for a
> small minority without having it all end up on the plates of the majority.
> Lessons learned: offer at least two vegetarian alternatives and
> prominently label them as such - for example, "for our vegetarian guests".

I have found at least when I have been cooking for people that the more I
offer, the more they will eat! If I make something that all but one person
will eat and then make something special for the one person, the others will
all want some of that too! However, they do tend to take small portions of
each thing. I have also learned that sometimes even when I know that a
person dislikes something, they will still take a small portion because they
know that I cooked it. For instance, beets. I know that my FIL hates beets
but I had been assigned to use up some old food at their house. So I made
Harvard Beets. My FIL loved my cooking, decided to try them and loved them.

> wrote in message
...
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 1:01:12 PM UTC-7, Moe DeLoughan wrote:
>> On 5/21/2014 2:10 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 21 May 2014 13:54:11 -0500, Janet Wilder wrote:
>
>> >> Remember, at a buffet, people are going to load their plates
>> >> with a little of everything.
>>
>
>> > I've been in a situation where the vegetarians, all 2 of them out of
>> > about 30 people, had a shit fit because the omnivores were eating
>> > "their" food from the buffet.
>>
>>
>>
>> Having catered in those situations, I had a shit fit, too, because the
>> omnivores had ample foods to fill their plates with, and yet they
>> insisted on taking the expensive meat entrees *and* the expensive
>> vegetarian alternative. That gets very expensive, and the few guests
>> who could only eat that one thing are understandably angry when other
>> people beat them to it. It's a tough scenario - trying to provide an
>> alternative entree for a small minority without having it all end up
>> on the plates of the majority. Lessons learned: offer at least two
>> vegetarian alternatives and prominently label them as such - for
>> example, "for our vegetarian guests".
>
> The idea that omnivores eat anything was lost on the caterers, who
> should have made another tray or two of the vegetarian "entree," knowing
> that omnivores would want to try it.
>
> The other alternative is to make the vegetarian entree so narsty that
> only committed vegetarians would take it. I suggest it feature bow-tie
> pasta and soy nuggets with lima beans, garnished with dillweed and
> cilantro.

Or... They could have simply portioned out the vegetarian item, asked who
got it and taken those people their plates.

"DreadfulBitch" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/21/2014 9:45 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> I hate wedding receptions too. Especially the ones that go on for hours
>> and hours and hours and have some hokey band or DJ that thinks they are
>> playing the music that we like.
>
> The music, Julie, is the choice of the bridal couple, not the guests. And,
> if you don't want to stay for hours and hours and hours you could, oh... I
> don't know.... leave!
>
I know the music is their choice but... I went to one wedding where nobody
could figure out exactly what the music was supposed to be. There was a
band but they were playing songs that nobody had ever heard of before. The
bride was a year older than me but most of the people she invited to the
wedding were around my parents age. So when she saw that nobody was
dancing, she approached some of them and asked something like... Isn't this
the kind of music that people of your age like? She was met with sort of
blank stares as nobody really knew what it was.

Another time I had to stay because the bride and groom were both blind and I
was the one who had to take them home. Yes, home as they were poor and had
no real honeymoon. The groom had actually chosen that band and it was very
loud heavy metal. Did I mention that marriage didn't even last 2 months?

Leaving isn't always an option. Sometimes I am not the one driving. Most
of the time I am not the one driving. Often the wedding is far away and we
carpool.

> wrote in message
...
On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:56:44 PM UTC-5, DreadfulBitch wrote:
>
> On 5/21/2014 9:45 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
> > I hate wedding receptions too. Especially the ones that go on for hours
> and hours and hours and have some hokey band or DJ that thinks they are
> playing the music that we like. The music, Julie, is the choice of the
bridal couple, not the guests. And, if you don't want to stay for hours and
hours and hours you could, oh... I don't know.... leave!

>
>
Absolutely. There is no law that says a person has to stay at any social
function until the last guest leaves if they are not enjoying themselves.
Stay an hour and slip out and go home, go to a movie, go shopping, go to a
bar, go to a club. There's no law you have to stay especially if you are
not enjoying the music, food, or other guests. It's really a simple
solution that seems to escape many.

All I can say, Julie, is DUH!

---

Explain how I would do that when I'm in a state where I don't live and had
to get a ride from someone else to get to the venue? Oh and... I was
staying with that person as well so... I couldn't get back into their
house. I also don't go to bars or clubs any more and certainly wouldn't
waste money going to a movie. And shopping when I am in some other state
and clear out in the boonies? What would you have me buy? Animal feed?
Yes, that was the only store within walking distance of where I was staying.

On Thu, 22 May 2014 22:36:59 -0700, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> I have also been to some receptions that had alcohol but if you wanted it,
> you had to pay for it out of your own pocket. I found that rather tacky.

That's fine by me. Get drunk on your own dime. They provide wine and
beer, if you want something else - there's a limited bar selection for
mixed drinks.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On Friday, May 23, 2014 12:59:49 AM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> Explain how I would do that when I'm in a state where I don't live and had to get a ride from someone else to get to the venue? Oh and... I was staying with that person as well so... I couldn't get back into their house. I also don't go to bars or clubs any more and certainly wouldn't waste money going to a movie. And shopping when I am in some other state and clear out in the boonies? What would you have me buy? Animal feed? Yes, that was the only store within walking distance of where I was staying.
>
>
Julie, you make up more bullshit than any person I have e-v-e-r come across on this group. It's always, always, always some sort of high school drama with you, your kid, that thing you call a husband and on and on. It never ends with you and you've always got some stupid outlandish tale why you can't do this, can't do that, can't eat this, can't eat that, can't go there, can't tolerate this or that. You're just an attention whore, no doubt about it.

> wrote in message
...
On Friday, May 23, 2014 12:59:49 AM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> Explain how I would do that when I'm in a state where I don't live and had
> to get a ride from someone else to get to the venue? Oh and... I was
> staying with that person as well so... I couldn't get back into their
> house. I also don't go to bars or clubs any more and certainly wouldn't
> waste money going to a movie. And shopping when I am in some other state
> and clear out in the boonies? What would you have me buy? Animal feed?
> Yes, that was the only store within walking distance of where I was
> staying.
>
>
Julie, you make up more bullshit than any person I have e-v-e-r come across
on this group. It's always, always, always some sort of high school drama
with you, your kid, that thing you call a husband and on and on. It never
ends with you and you've always got some stupid outlandish tale why you
can't do this, can't do that, can't eat this, can't eat that, can't go
there, can't tolerate this or that. You're just an attention whore, no
doubt about it.

---

High school drama? No. And no outlandish tales. Have you never been
invited to a wedding in another city? Another state? I have.

On 5/23/2014 1:36 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Thu, 22 May 2014 09:56:13 -0400, James Silverton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> I had not been inside a Methodist church previously when I was asked to
>>> be an usher at a friend's Methodist wedding many years ago. I was
>>> disappointed to find no alcohol at the reception, being unaware of the
>>> prohibition. Fortunately, a number of the bride's relatives knew this
>>> and brought flasks that they shared.
>>
>> That's not uncommon for wedding receptions held on church property.
>> They don't want to be sued when some drunk takes a tumble and hurts
>> himself. An alcohol free reception is also budget friendly. Not
>> everyone wants to take out a second mortgage on the house just to
>> entertain people, half of whom are strangers, for a few hours.
>>
> I have also been to some receptions that had alcohol but if you wanted
> it, you had to pay for it out of your own pocket. I found that rather
> tacky.

Having an open bar can get very expensive. An example, not a wedding
reception but a company party - after having an open bar at the annual
"holiday" party a few years in a row, they realized how much money they
were shelling out just for booze alone. They switched to a cash bar.
Makes sense to me.

Jill

On 2014-05-23 1:57 AM, Julie Bove wrote:

> Another time I had to stay because the bride and groom were both blind
> and I was the one who had to take them home. Yes, home as they were
> poor and had no real honeymoon. The groom had actually chosen that band
> and it was very loud heavy metal. Did I mention that marriage didn't
> even last 2 months?
>


LMFAO... that is one of the looniest tales you have invented for us.

On 5/23/2014 8:47 AM, jmcquown wrote:

> Having an open bar can get very expensive. An example, not a wedding
> reception but a company party - after having an open bar at the annual
> "holiday" party a few years in a row, they realized how much money they
> were shelling out just for booze alone. They switched to a cash bar.
> Makes sense to me.

Not to mention the liability issue. The last Christmas party
my former employer held, someone crashed into 8 cars in the
parking lot. Luckily, I guess, as they didn't make it to the
street where it would have been worse.

Anyway, I don't really like to be surprised by a cash bar.
People who didn't expect to need money start fishing around for
credit cards or cash. I'd rather that there were carafes of wine
available for each table, maybe beer, that's a cheaper option.

nancy

On 5/23/2014 6:17 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> On Friday, May 23, 2014 12:59:49 AM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> Explain how I would do that when I'm in a state where I don't live and
>> had to get a ride from someone else to get to the venue? Oh and... I
>> was staying with that person as well so... I couldn't get back into
>> their house. I also don't go to bars or clubs any more and certainly
>> wouldn't waste money going to a movie. And shopping when I am in some
>> other state and clear out in the boonies? What would you have me buy?
>> Animal feed? Yes, that was the only store within walking distance of
>> where I was staying.
>>
>>
> Julie, you make up more bullshit than any person I have e-v-e-r come
> across on this group. It's always, always, always some sort of high
> school drama with you, your kid, that thing you call a husband and on
> and on. It never ends with you and you've always got some stupid
> outlandish tale why you can't do this, can't do that, can't eat this,
> can't eat that, can't go there, can't tolerate this or that. You're
> just an attention whore, no doubt about it.
>
> ---
>
> High school drama? No. And no outlandish tales. Have you never been
> invited to a wedding in another city? Another state? I have.
>
No one said you had to go. I used to get wedding invitations all the
time from out-of-town family (cousins). I never attended, just sent a
small gift.

Jill

On 2014-05-23 9:30 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

> Not to mention the liability issue. The last Christmas party
> my former employer held, someone crashed into 8 cars in the
> parking lot. Luckily, I guess, as they didn't make it to the
> street where it would have been worse.

There was a bizarre case here a number of years ago. A women got into an
accident on the way home from an office Christmas party and the company
was sued. What makes it worse is that she had only had a glass or two
of wine at the company party and they had offered her a ride home or a
taxi. He refused the ride. She then went to another bar and had a number
of drinks. It was in the second bar that she went over the booze limit.
The bar and the company were sued and found equally liable... but... the
bar had gone under and the company ended up having to pay it all.

Total damages were $1.2 million, but she was found 75% responsible so
the insurance company had to pay $300,000

>
> Anyway, I don't really like to be surprised by a cash bar.
> People who didn't expect to need money start fishing around for
> credit cards or cash. I'd rather that there were carafes of wine
> available for each table, maybe beer, that's a cheaper option.

Isn't it amazing how much more people drink when the booze is free.
There is a lot of trust that goes on when it comes to bar bills. When
nephew go married his wife insisted on an open bar. She had a number of
relatives who had come from Hungary for the wedding and they had not
objections to paying for a lot of drinks. However.... they were ticked
right off when the saw staff taking away drink glasses when the guests
were up dancing. That is a pretty good scam.... taking away unfinished
drinks so people who go to the bar and get more.

On 5/23/2014 9:30 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 5/23/2014 8:47 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>> Having an open bar can get very expensive. An example, not a wedding
>> reception but a company party - after having an open bar at the annual
>> "holiday" party a few years in a row, they realized how much money they
>> were shelling out just for booze alone. They switched to a cash bar.
>> Makes sense to me.
>
> Not to mention the liability issue. The last Christmas party
> my former employer held, someone crashed into 8 cars in the
> parking lot. Luckily, I guess, as they didn't make it to the
> street where it would have been worse.
>
Yikes! Yes, it would have been much worse.

> Anyway, I don't really like to be surprised by a cash bar.
> People who didn't expect to need money start fishing around for
> credit cards or cash. I'd rather that there were carafes of wine
> available for each table, maybe beer, that's a cheaper option.
>
> nancy

Seems to me there must be some way to include "cash bar" on the
reception card. There are lots of discussions about this on wedding
forums. Most consider it tacky, but a lot of them, like you, would
rather not be surprised and find they have no cash.

Jill

On 5/23/2014 10:21 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 5/23/2014 9:30 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

>> Anyway, I don't really like to be surprised by a cash bar.
>> People who didn't expect to need money start fishing around for
>> credit cards or cash. I'd rather that there were carafes of wine
>> available for each table, maybe beer, that's a cheaper option.

> Seems to me there must be some way to include "cash bar" on the
> reception card. There are lots of discussions about this on wedding
> forums. Most consider it tacky, but a lot of them, like you, would
> rather not be surprised and find they have no cash.

My personal feeling, that means just me, no one should get
upset, is that no one is pulling out their wallet at a
party I give. I really feel weird about that. Understand
also, I know people if don't like it, they don't have to drink.
Whatever, if I'm the host, I'm paying.

If I can't afford the whole shebang, I'd rather have a cocktail
party with horse doovers than a full sit down dinner.

Just one person's comfort zone.

nancy

On Fri, 23 May 2014 09:30:22 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

> Anyway, I don't really like to be surprised by a cash bar.
> People who didn't expect to need money start fishing around for
> credit cards or cash. I'd rather that there were carafes of wine
> available for each table, maybe beer, that's a cheaper option.

Not saying it never happens, just that I haven't personally
experienced any reception where the guests had to buy all their own
booze. The usual drill is wine and beer is supplied and there's a
limited choice of hard liquor + mixers that you pay for. When they're
really controlling costs a certain number of wine bottles are put on
the table and that's it. Not a beer drinker, so I haven't noticed how
that part is handled. If it was my event, I'd have it in buckets of
ice for people to grab if they wanted one and when it's gone, it's
gone.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On Fri, 23 May 2014 10:12:58 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> at the company party and they had offered her a ride home or a
> taxi. He refused the ride. She then went to another bar and had a number
> of drinks. It was in the second bar that she went over the booze limit.
> The bar and the company were sued and found equally liable... but... the
> bar had gone under and the company ended up having to pay it all.

That is why tort reform is so important. In the absence of any real
reform, that's why the legal blood alcohol limit that defines
impaired driving has gotten so low and fines have gotten so high.
Nowadays, you can hit and kill someone without suffering any real
consequences if you haven't broken a law. They don't put you in jail
for being stupid.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On Fri, 23 May 2014 10:21:49 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>
> Seems to me there must be some way to include "cash bar" on the
> reception card. There are lots of discussions about this on wedding
> forums. Most consider it tacky, but a lot of them, like you, would
> rather not be surprised and find they have no cash.

Wording like "cocktail reception" and “no host bar” are used, but
there are wedding web sites these days where those details are made
clear.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On Fri, 23 May 2014 09:26:23 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2014-05-23 1:57 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>
> > Another time I had to stay because the bride and groom were both blind
> > and I was the one who had to take them home. Yes, home as they were
> > poor and had no real honeymoon. The groom had actually chosen that band
> > and it was very loud heavy metal. Did I mention that marriage didn't
> > even last 2 months?
> >
>
>
> LMFAO... that is one of the looniest tales you have invented for us.

After that 72 hour Kardashian marriage, anything is possible.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On 2014-05-23 11:59 AM, sf wrote:

>> at the company party and they had offered her a ride home or a
>> taxi. He refused the ride. She then went to another bar and had a number
>> of drinks. It was in the second bar that she went over the booze limit.
>> The bar and the company were sued and found equally liable... but... the
>> bar had gone under and the company ended up having to pay it all.
>
> That is why tort reform is so important. In the absence of any real
> reform, that's why the legal blood alcohol limit that defines
> impaired driving has gotten so low and fines have gotten so high.
> Nowadays, you can hit and kill someone without suffering any real
> consequences if you haven't broken a law. They don't put you in jail
> for being stupid.
>



I am not advocating drinking and driving, but I think they are getting
carried away with the BAC laws. Before we had them there were laws
about impaired driving, but in order to get a conviction they had to
show some proof that the person was impaired, so there were a number of
field sobriety tests used. The BAC laws set an arbitrary level of
alcohol in your system and it can be measured objectively. I say
arbitrary because it varies from one jurisdiction to another.

While we are flogging the drinking drivers, there are lots of other
types of impairment that they don't bother with. People with severe
allergies, bad cold or the flu may be even more impaired by their
condition than drinkers. Apparently there is an epidemic of
prescription pain addiction, so those people are likely impaired by the
opiates they are consuming, not to mention those who are legally on pain
medication with doses high enough that they don't feel or don't care
about their pain.

Age is a major impairment issue. Then there is the use of electronic
devices while driving, which is involved in as many incidents as alcohol.

I also have issues with the punishment for DUI. I have seen too many
reports of people getting serious penalties for repeat offenses for
driving over the limit but with no crashes. Meanwhile, incidents of
drunk drivers crashing and there are injuries or fatalities but only
light sentences. There was a local case of a young woman driving
drunk... not just over 0.08... drunk. Her best friend was killed in the
crash. It is a worst case scenario, the reason we come down so hard on
those with elevated BAC. She showed remorse and got a slap on the wrist,
a couple months of house arrest.

On 2014-05-23 12:12 PM, sf wrote:
> On Fri, 23 May 2014 09:26:23 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2014-05-23 1:57 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>>> Another time I had to stay because the bride and groom were both blind
>>> and I was the one who had to take them home. Yes, home as they were
>>> poor and had no real honeymoon. The groom had actually chosen that band
>>> and it was very loud heavy metal. Did I mention that marriage didn't
>>> even last 2 months?
>>>
>>
>>
>> LMFAO... that is one of the looniest tales you have invented for us.
>
> After that 72 hour Kardashian marriage, anything is possible.
>

Julie does not travel in the same circles as the Kardashians.

And WTF is it with the Kardashians? Why do people even care about them?

On Fri, 23 May 2014 12:19:11 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2014-05-23 11:59 AM, sf wrote:
>
> >> at the company party and they had offered her a ride home or a
> >> taxi. He refused the ride. She then went to another bar and had a number
> >> of drinks. It was in the second bar that she went over the booze limit.
> >> The bar and the company were sued and found equally liable... but... the
> >> bar had gone under and the company ended up having to pay it all.
> >
> > That is why tort reform is so important. In the absence of any real
> > reform, that's why the legal blood alcohol limit that defines
> > impaired driving has gotten so low and fines have gotten so high.
> > Nowadays, you can hit and kill someone without suffering any real
> > consequences if you haven't broken a law. They don't put you in jail
> > for being stupid.
> >
>
>
>
> I am not advocating drinking and driving, but I think they are getting
> carried away with the BAC laws. Before we had them there were laws
> about impaired driving, but in order to get a conviction they had to
> show some proof that the person was impaired, so there were a number of
> field sobriety tests used. The BAC laws set an arbitrary level of
> alcohol in your system and it can be measured objectively. I say
> arbitrary because it varies from one jurisdiction to another.
>
> While we are flogging the drinking drivers, there are lots of other
> types of impairment that they don't bother with. People with severe
> allergies, bad cold or the flu may be even more impaired by their
> condition than drinkers. Apparently there is an epidemic of
> prescription pain addiction, so those people are likely impaired by the
> opiates they are consuming, not to mention those who are legally on pain
> medication with doses high enough that they don't feel or don't care
> about their pain.

That's why it's called impaired driving or driving under the influence
these days. However, you have to break a law to have the book thrown
at you. Pedestrians and bike riders (both man-powered and motor) are
pretty stupid too. Surely you've noticed that from time to time.
>
> Age is a major impairment issue. Then there is the use of electronic
> devices while driving, which is involved in as many incidents as alcohol.
>
> I also have issues with the punishment for DUI. I have seen too many
> reports of people getting serious penalties for repeat offenses for
> driving over the limit but with no crashes. Meanwhile, incidents of
> drunk drivers crashing and there are injuries or fatalities but only
> light sentences. There was a local case of a young woman driving
> drunk... not just over 0.08... drunk. Her best friend was killed in the
> crash. It is a worst case scenario, the reason we come down so hard on
> those with elevated BAC. She showed remorse and got a slap on the wrist,
> a couple months of house arrest.

The law is certainly applied unevenly. How about the people who get
off just because they're rich? We had two cases that made the
national news just in the past year.
1.
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/affluenza-teen-again-avoids-jail-for-deadly-texas-dwi-crash/>

2.
<http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Drunk-drivers-light-sentence-triggers-protest-in-Olympia-259543311.html>


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On Fri, 23 May 2014 12:24:35 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> On 2014-05-23 12:12 PM, sf wrote:
> > On Fri, 23 May 2014 09:26:23 -0400, Dave Smith
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2014-05-23 1:57 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
> >>
> >>> Another time I had to stay because the bride and groom were both blind
> >>> and I was the one who had to take them home. Yes, home as they were
> >>> poor and had no real honeymoon. The groom had actually chosen that band
> >>> and it was very loud heavy metal. Did I mention that marriage didn't
> >>> even last 2 months?
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> LMFAO... that is one of the looniest tales you have invented for us.
> >
> > After that 72 hour Kardashian marriage, anything is possible.
> >
>
> Julie does not travel in the same circles as the Kardashians.
>
> And WTF is it with the Kardashians? Why do people even care about them?

IMO, it's the Paris Hilton effect... famous for being famous.
http://radaronline.com/photos/no-tal.../photo/577165/


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

On 5/23/2014 10:21 AM, jmcquown wrote:

>
> Seems to me there must be some way to include "cash bar" on the
> reception card. There are lots of discussions about this on wedding
> forums. Most consider it tacky, but a lot of them, like you, would
> rather not be surprised and find they have no cash.
>
> Jill

It would also weed out the ones that go just for the free food and drink
and give a $5 gift.. I don't have a problem with a cash bar as I'm only
going to have one drink anyway.

On 5/23/2014 12:24 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

>>> LMFAO... that is one of the looniest tales you have invented for us.
>>
>> After that 72 hour Kardashian marriage, anything is possible.
>>
>
> Julie does not travel in the same circles as the Kardashians.
>
> And WTF is it with the Kardashians? Why do people even care about them?
>

Because they don't know Julie.

On Friday, May 23, 2014 5:47:28 AM UTC-7, jmcquown wrote:
> On 5/23/2014 1:36 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>

> > I have also been to some receptions that had alcohol but if you wanted
> > it, you had to pay for it out of your own pocket. I found that rather
> > tacky.
>
> Having an open bar can get very expensive. An example, not a wedding
> reception but a company party - after having an open bar at the annual
> "holiday" party a few years in a row, they realized how much money they
> were shelling out just for booze alone. They switched to a cash bar.
> Makes sense to me.
>

Friends of mine got married a year or so after graduation, when they
hadn't saved up a lot of money yet. They had a tasteful afternoon
reception in a restaurant back room. Although they were not teetotalers,
they did not want to pay for everyone to get a buzz on. So after the
champagne toast, all the guests were served two drinks each, by the
waitresses.
a champagne toast.

Julie Bove wrote:
>
> I try to be kind to other people and animals. I try to be helpful.. I give
> to the food bank. Stuff like that. I try not to break laws. And I try to
> do the right thing.

If you truly believe that, Julie...you should try to eat a BigMac even
with the sauce that disgusts you....even though you've never tried
one.
You have no valid judgement for anything until you have tried it.

G.

Gary wrote:
>Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> I try to be kind to other people and animals. I try to be helpful.. I give
>> to the food bank. Stuff like that. I try not to break laws. And I try to
>> do the right thing.
>
>If you truly believe that, Julie...you should try to eat a BigMac even
>with the sauce that disgusts you....even though you've never tried
>one. You have no valid judgement for anything until you have tried it.

It's not necessary to taste something to know you won't like it... it
looks like shit, it feels like shit, it smells like shit, it's a good
thing we didn't step in it.

On 2014-05-23 12:36 PM, sf wrote:

>> While we are flogging the drinking drivers, there are lots of other
>> types of impairment that they don't bother with. People with severe
>> allergies, bad cold or the flu may be even more impaired by their
>> condition than drinkers. Apparently there is an epidemic of
>> prescription pain addiction, so those people are likely impaired by the
>> opiates they are consuming, not to mention those who are legally on pain
>> medication with doses high enough that they don't feel or don't care
>> about their pain.
>
> That's why it's called impaired driving or driving under the influence
> these days. However, you have to break a law to have the book thrown
> at you. Pedestrians and bike riders (both man-powered and motor) are
> pretty stupid too. Surely you've noticed that from time to time.

No doubt. I was at a mall today. People walking behind cars that are
backing up? I almost ran into a guy with my bicycle yesterday. He was
standing on the sidewalk looking around. I was coming along and
sticking close to the edge. Just as I was about to go past him he
suddenly turned and stepped onto the pavement .. right in front of me.


>> Age is a major impairment issue. Then there is the use of electronic
>> devices while driving, which is involved in as many incidents as alcohol.
>>
>> I also have issues with the punishment for DUI. I have seen too many
>> reports of people getting serious penalties for repeat offenses for
>> driving over the limit but with no crashes. Meanwhile, incidents of
>> drunk drivers crashing and there are injuries or fatalities but only
>> light sentences. There was a local case of a young woman driving
>> drunk... not just over 0.08... drunk. Her best friend was killed in the
>> crash. It is a worst case scenario, the reason we come down so hard on
>> those with elevated BAC. She showed remorse and got a slap on the wrist,
>> a couple months of house arrest.
>
> The law is certainly applied unevenly. How about the people who get
> off just because they're rich? We had two cases that made the
> national news just in the past year.
> 1.
> <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/affluenza-teen-again-avoids-jail-for-deadly-texas-dwi-crash/>
>
> 2.
> <http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Drunk-drivers-light-sentence-triggers-protest-in-Olympia-259543311.html>


Those are shameful enough. In the example I gave, there was slightly
related case in the news, a serial drunk driver with about a dozen
convictions for DUI but never any accidents got something like five
years. You aren't supposed to drink and drive because you might crash
and someone could get killed. Then you get the young lady who drove
drunk, crashes and her best friend is killed..... a couple months house
arrest. IMO, it should have been the other way around.

jmcquown wrote:
>
> Seems to me there must be some way to include "cash bar" on the
> reception card. There are lots of discussions about this on wedding
> forums. Most consider it tacky, but a lot of them, like you, would
> rather not be surprised and find they have no cash.

I've been to 3 wedding and receptions and no alcohol at any of them. I
didn't miss it at all. The food was good and talking to people was
fun. Why would people need to get drunk on the one most special day of
a couples life? I just find the need/desire for it a bit strange on
that occasion.

G.

On Fri, 23 May 2014 17:34:40 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

> Then you get the young lady who drove
> drunk, crashes and her best friend is killed..... a couple months house
> arrest. IMO, it should have been the other way around.
>
It rarely is. We used to read constantly about crashes where everyone
died except the driver.


--

Good Food.
Good Friends.
Good Memories.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/23/2014 1:36 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Thu, 22 May 2014 09:56:13 -0400, James Silverton
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I had not been inside a Methodist church previously when I was asked to
>>>> be an usher at a friend's Methodist wedding many years ago. I was
>>>> disappointed to find no alcohol at the reception, being unaware of the
>>>> prohibition. Fortunately, a number of the bride's relatives knew this
>>>> and brought flasks that they shared.
>>>
>>> That's not uncommon for wedding receptions held on church property.
>>> They don't want to be sued when some drunk takes a tumble and hurts
>>> himself. An alcohol free reception is also budget friendly. Not
>>> everyone wants to take out a second mortgage on the house just to
>>> entertain people, half of whom are strangers, for a few hours.
>>>
>> I have also been to some receptions that had alcohol but if you wanted
>> it, you had to pay for it out of your own pocket. I found that rather
>> tacky.
>
> Having an open bar can get very expensive. An example, not a wedding
> reception but a company party - after having an open bar at the annual
> "holiday" party a few years in a row, they realized how much money they
> were shelling out just for booze alone. They switched to a cash bar.
> Makes sense to me.

Indeed! But I have been to parties where they had a choice of red and white
wine, beer on tap and some sort of spiked punch. That way people who want
liquor can still get it although the choices are limited. There is also the
option of only offering a signature cocktail.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> Seems to me there must be some way to include "cash bar" on the
>> reception card. There are lots of discussions about this on wedding
>> forums. Most consider it tacky, but a lot of them, like you, would
>> rather not be surprised and find they have no cash.
>
> I've been to 3 wedding and receptions and no alcohol at any of them. I
> didn't miss it at all. The food was good and talking to people was
> fun. Why would people need to get drunk on the one most special day of
> a couples life? I just find the need/desire for it a bit strange on
> that occasion.

I worked with a gal who was always talking about beer and how much she loved
it. Then when she refused to go to the car races with us because not only
did they not sell beer but wouldn't allow her to bring it in did I realize
that she was an alcoholic.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 5/23/2014 6:17 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> On Friday, May 23, 2014 12:59:49 AM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>
>>> Explain how I would do that when I'm in a state where I don't live and
>>> had to get a ride from someone else to get to the venue? Oh and... I
>>> was staying with that person as well so... I couldn't get back into
>>> their house. I also don't go to bars or clubs any more and certainly
>>> wouldn't waste money going to a movie. And shopping when I am in some
>>> other state and clear out in the boonies? What would you have me buy?
>>> Animal feed? Yes, that was the only store within walking distance of
>>> where I was staying.
>>>
>>>
>> Julie, you make up more bullshit than any person I have e-v-e-r come
>> across on this group. It's always, always, always some sort of high
>> school drama with you, your kid, that thing you call a husband and on
>> and on. It never ends with you and you've always got some stupid
>> outlandish tale why you can't do this, can't do that, can't eat this,
>> can't eat that, can't go there, can't tolerate this or that. You're
>> just an attention whore, no doubt about it.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> High school drama? No. And no outlandish tales. Have you never been
>> invited to a wedding in another city? Another state? I have.
>>
> No one said you had to go. I used to get wedding invitations all the time
> from out-of-town family (cousins). I never attended, just sent a small
> gift.

Seeing as how my husband was *in* the wedding, I did kind of have to go.
And a small gift wouldn't have been appropriate here.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 23 May 2014 09:26:23 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2014-05-23 1:57 AM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> > Another time I had to stay because the bride and groom were both blind
>> > and I was the one who had to take them home. Yes, home as they were
>> > poor and had no real honeymoon. The groom had actually chosen that
>> > band
>> > and it was very loud heavy metal. Did I mention that marriage didn't
>> > even last 2 months?
>> >
>>
>>
>> LMFAO... that is one of the looniest tales you have invented for us.
>
> After that 72 hour Kardashian marriage, anything is possible.

This wasn't made up at all. My friend lost one eye totally and most of the
sight in her other due to cancer. She had one glass eye and 20/100 vision
in the other with a contact and glasses. She would do anything to get out
of the house as her parents were so over-protective. So she married the
first man that asked her. Several years later, she married an older man,
also blind. Both are lawyers now.

On 2014-05-23 23:21, Julie Bove wrote:

>
> I worked with a gal who was always talking about beer and how much she
> loved it. Then when she refused to go to the car races with us because
> not only did they not sell beer but wouldn't allow her to bring it in
> did I realize that she was an alcoholic.


Maybe she didn't like car races. There are two car race tracks around
here. One is about 8 miles from me and the other is about 12 miles. A
team of horses could not drag me a car race. In fact, two weeks ago when
I was volunteering at the local art show I was offered a pair of
tickets to one of them and turned them down.


I like beer. It has nothing to do with not being able to get beer there.
I don't have any camo hats or a black jackets with flames.