~patches~ wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> notbob wrote:
>>
>>
>>> While I can sympathize with your frustration, you gotta admit it's a
>>> bit silly to expect a controlled environment in a public place.
>>
>>
>>
>> Wait a sec.... a 4 star restaurant should be a controlled environment.
>> Screaming kids is what you have to tolerate when you go to family
>> restaurants and fast food joints where the low lifes cannot control their
>> brats.
>
>
> As empty nesters with adult children, I agree. OTOH, the parents
> couldn't control their child's crying anymore than the manager or owner.
> The responsible thing for the parents to do would be to leave the
> restaurant. A 4 star restaurant is not the place for a tired child that
> just won't settle and the parents should have realized that.
>
>
> IMO, I think the OP has a valid complaint but I don't think he handled
> it properly.
>
>>
>> I can understand the owner not wanting to talk to the parents. They are
>> the type of people who would bring their screaming brat into a nice
>> restaurant and probably never even consider what a pain in the ass their
>> little prince or princess is to people who do not appreciate. They
>> offered to move you to another section. You should have moved, or you
>> could have left and told the manager why. That would give him reason not
>> to admit rowdy children in the future.
>>
>>
>>> Next time you're looking for a romantic dinner, ask for some kinda
>>> assurance you'll get some peace and quiet ...that and slip the host a
>>> bigger tip.
>>
>>
>>
>> I really hate the idea that you have to bribe a host or hostess to get
>> what should be expected of a 4 star restaurant. I feel badly for the
>> waiter who got stiffed for a tip, but then I have my own thing about
>> being expected to pay a substantially higher tip for service because the
>> food is so much more expensive. When you go to a nice place one of the
>> reasons for the food being more expensive is the ambience. That ambience
>> didn't do much for the OP because it was spoiled by the brat.
>>
>
> At two years old, I hardly think the child was a spoiled brat. The
> child was simply tired and had enough of life for that day.
>

any child whose parents can afford to take them to a 4-star restaurant,
and are willing to inflict the inherent obnoxia of a preschooler on
people expecting a relatively refined dining experience is likely a
spoiled brat, yes.

> Correct me if I'm wrong but if we're paying for a romatic dinner we
> expect a certain level of ambience and that doesn't include children. If
> we wanted to be around children we would go to a fast food joint. So, I
> think the owner was wrong in this case. I also think the OP and his
> wife could have quietly told the owner they no longer desired eating
> there and went on their merry way to enjoy the evening without stiffing
> someone who had given them good service.
>
> Personally, had that happened to us, we would simply had told the owner
> that if you can't give us the level of service we expect, we will take
> our business elsewhere.

this is what i would have done as well. staying for their meal only
profited the owner. perhaps i have less tolerance for small children
where they are not welcome because i have one myself


--

saerah

"It's not a gimmick, it's an incentive."- asterbark, afca

aware of the manifold possibilities of the future

"I think there's a clause in the Shaman's and Jujumen's Local #57 Union
contract that they have to have reciprocity for each other's shop rules."
-König Prüß

rosie wrote:
> At the very least, you owe the waiter A good tip and an apology.
>
> A romantic dinner could not really be ruined by a crying child.

yes it could be. easily. a crying child is one of the more irritating
sounds that exist. this is to make their parents pay attention to them,
which in this particular child's case, was obviously not working.

>The
> parents should have taken the child out, however, if you had a sense of
> humor about the whole thing it would have been a lot better. Sometimes,
> shit happens.
>
> Rosie
>


--

saerah

"It's not a gimmick, it's an incentive."- asterbark, afca

aware of the manifold possibilities of the future

"I think there's a clause in the Shaman's and Jujumen's Local #57 Union
contract that they have to have reciprocity for each other's shop rules."
-König Prüß

Peter Aitken wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> >
> > Peter Aitken wrote:
> >> "A.C." > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> I left a note on the receipt to the waiter that due to
> >> >> the actions of the owner he would not be receiving a
> >> >> tip. I also commended him and the chef on their
> >> >> service.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > i don't agree with this at all. you said the food and service were
> >> > great
> >> > but you
> >> > didn't tip the waiter. i don't think it was the waiters fault. those
> >> > folks
> >> > work
> >> > for tips so you basically make him work for free due to something that
> >> > was
> >> > not
> >> > in his control. you didn't hurt the manager at all. he still got his
> >> > money
> >> > and
> >> > corkage fee. it was nice that you commended the waiter on his service
> >> > but
> >> > stiffing him was the wrong thing to do in my opinion.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> There is some validity to what you say but what other option did the
> >> customer have? Perhaps an angry employee will help the manager change his
> >> ways. The waiter is responsible for certain things that may not be within
> >> his control. For example if there is a really long wait to get your food
> >> it
> >> may be the kitchen's fault but it is still the waiter's responsibility
> >> and
> >> can validly be reflected in the tip.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Peter Aitken
> >
> > OP was totally in the wrong; Peter, a waiter wanting to keep a job that
> > likely is highly sought-after in the food service world because of its
> > reputation and its prices (indicating generous tips) has no business,
> > approaching, and should not do so, a manager or in this case, owner,
> > because the waiter is "angry" about not getting a tip due to the
> > owner's inaction. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
> >
>
> I find your position bizarre. You seem to be saying that an employee cannot
> and should not complain to their boss. Do you really believe that?
>
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

I'm saying that a waiter wanting to keep his job should not be
confronting the OWNER with a complaint about the OWNER's behavior in a
confrontational manner, which is what I thought you were saying, and,
frankly, I don't see how I could misinterpret what you posted. A
waiter quietly telling the owner, after the restaurant closed, that the
waiter FELT he MIGHT HAVE lost a tip because the noisy table COULDN'T
BE MOVED (which is giving the owner the benefit of the doubt and not
specifically laying blame in his direction) is different from the way I
interpreted your comment. Below is what you said:

"Perhaps an angry employee will help the manager change his ways."

This, to me, indicates you weren't acknowledging that the OWNER was the
person needing to change his ways, and "an angry employee" confronting
the owner isn't a good idea without some caveats about the language and
attitude required to keep the conversation helpful rather than
confrontational. That's all I was saying.

N.

aem wrote:
>
> There's nothing wrong or unusual about bringing your own wine. Good
> restaurants charge a fee

Legitimate 4 Star restaurants don't do corkage... besides, 4 Star and
"good" do not compute... "good" for you is Olive Garden... and I don't
think they do corkage either, not when yoose Olive Gardeners would
arrive with Carlo Rossi Chianti (dago red) in gallon jugs.

The relatively few restaurants that do corkage will not permit patrons
to bring wine they sell... corkage is for instances where someone
drinks a very particular wine (usually expensive/rare, and not on the
wine establishment's list)... the biker bar you frequent probably would
do corkage for your Boone's Farm.... $5 for plastic cups and a bag of
ice, so long as yoose buy rounds of pickled eggs and pig knuckles. LOL

Sheldon

"sf" > wrote

> take their tikes elsewhere. BTW: Saddleback Inn is a Best Western.

NO WAY! That. is hilarious.

nancy

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:

<snip>

> As for "compensation offered," it sounds like you were determined to be
> annoyed. Restaurants are in the business of selling food and drink. Doing all
> the service elements is included in the price. Bringing your own food or drink
> in is rather rude.

> Pastorio

Practices around the country differ but there are some common courtesies:

Dimitri

http://www.winecountrygetaways.com/corkage.html


Corkage Fees | Rules for Bringing Wine to a Restaurant
Bringing wine to a restaurant is a common practice among wine lovers. However,
there are some unwritten rules to consider should you decide to do this.

The wine should be special, something that is unlikely to be on that restaurant's
wine list. It might be a wine from a boutique winery or wine that is available
only at the winery. Or, the wine might be one that has been aging in your wine
cellar.

It is always a good idea to call ahead and ask the restaurant about their
corkage fee. Fees will vary, but some restaurants will charge an outrageous
corkage fee. For example, a recently opened fancy San Francisco restaurant
charges $50. Expect to pay from $10 to $20 for a corkage fee. Expect to pay a
higher corkage fee for a magnum of wine.

If you have a bottle of wine that requires chilling, bring the wine chilled in
an insulated wine tote bag.

When your wine is opened, a common courtesy is to offer the waiter a taste of
the wine.

More Tips

A few restaurants will waive the corkage fee if you purchase an additional wine
from the restaurant.

A few wine country restaurants will waive the corkage fee if you bring a wine
from the wine region where the restaurant is located. We hope this is a growing
trend in the wine country.

If you are eating at a neighborhood restaurant or any restaurant that does not
have a great wine list, you can bring a wine that is not so distinctive, but one
that is of good quality and, of course, not on their wine list.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > Peter Aitken wrote:
>> >> "A.C." > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> I left a note on the receipt to the waiter that due to
>> >> >> the actions of the owner he would not be receiving a
>> >> >> tip. I also commended him and the chef on their
>> >> >> service.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > i don't agree with this at all. you said the food and service were
>> >> > great
>> >> > but you
>> >> > didn't tip the waiter. i don't think it was the waiters fault. those
>> >> > folks
>> >> > work
>> >> > for tips so you basically make him work for free due to something
>> >> > that
>> >> > was
>> >> > not
>> >> > in his control. you didn't hurt the manager at all. he still got his
>> >> > money
>> >> > and
>> >> > corkage fee. it was nice that you commended the waiter on his
>> >> > service
>> >> > but
>> >> > stiffing him was the wrong thing to do in my opinion.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> There is some validity to what you say but what other option did the
>> >> customer have? Perhaps an angry employee will help the manager change
>> >> his
>> >> ways. The waiter is responsible for certain things that may not be
>> >> within
>> >> his control. For example if there is a really long wait to get your
>> >> food
>> >> it
>> >> may be the kitchen's fault but it is still the waiter's responsibility
>> >> and
>> >> can validly be reflected in the tip.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Peter Aitken
>> >
>> > OP was totally in the wrong; Peter, a waiter wanting to keep a job that
>> > likely is highly sought-after in the food service world because of its
>> > reputation and its prices (indicating generous tips) has no business,
>> > approaching, and should not do so, a manager or in this case, owner,
>> > because the waiter is "angry" about not getting a tip due to the
>> > owner's inaction. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
>> >
>>
>> I find your position bizarre. You seem to be saying that an employee
>> cannot
>> and should not complain to their boss. Do you really believe that?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Aitken
>
> I'm saying that a waiter wanting to keep his job should not be
> confronting the OWNER with a complaint about the OWNER's behavior in a
> confrontational manner, which is what I thought you were saying, and,
> frankly, I don't see how I could misinterpret what you posted. A
> waiter quietly telling the owner, after the restaurant closed, that the
> waiter FELT he MIGHT HAVE lost a tip because the noisy table COULDN'T
> BE MOVED (which is giving the owner the benefit of the doubt and not
> specifically laying blame in his direction) is different from the way I
> interpreted your comment. Below is what you said:
>
> "Perhaps an angry employee will help the manager change his ways."
>
> This, to me, indicates you weren't acknowledging that the OWNER was the
> person needing to change his ways, and "an angry employee" confronting
> the owner isn't a good idea without some caveats about the language and
> attitude required to keep the conversation helpful rather than
> confrontational. That's all I was saying.
>
> N.
>

Quite right, I expressed myself badly. The employee should make his
displeasure known to the owner is a calm and reasoned manner.


--
Peter Aitken

According to Peter Aiken
" It is astounding how some parents
are so completely selfish and ignore anyone and everyone around them.
And of
course the bratty kids will turn out the same way. It's a good argument
for
euthanasia. "
---------Geez, Peter, I had always thought of you as one of the saner
posters here. I'm sure the parents were disturbed as well, but
temporarily unable to quiet their child. Perhaps they weren't
"completely selfish". Arrowhead is a family resort area, high in the
mountains, and there are not a lot of restaurant choices. It was a
holiday/family week-end. Don't you suppose the parents were hoping to
have a quiet family dinner as well? Baby-sitter prices these days, in
a resort area, can run more than the dinner tab. Why didn't they/you
ask to be served in another, quieter area? Go to an adult club. Or ask
to be served in the bar area. There seem to be more "Crying Babies"
here on RFC that in the Saddleback Restaurant. From your post, I'd
guess that YOU were one of the crying babies when you were young.
Nancree (waiting for more "flack" from you adult cry-babies)

Sheldon wrote:

> Legitimate 4 Star restaurants don't do corkage... besides, 4 Star and
> "good" do not compute... "good" for you is Olive Garden... and I don't
> think they do corkage either, not when yoose Olive Gardeners would
> arrive with Carlo Rossi Chianti (dago red) in gallon jugs.

I am not too sure about that Sheldon. BYOW is a new phenomenon in this
province, having just been introduced a few months. I don't know of any
local restaurants that have that yet and I understand that it there aren't
that many places that went for it. But I know of one upscale restaurant in
Toronto that has it, in addition to their very extensive wine list, and
they charge $30 corkage. It is very common in mid price places in
Montreal.

The first time I encountered one was in PA, just north of the Poconos. The
waitress explained that they were a dry county. They could not sell wine,
but they would cork a bottle if you brought it in.

Who assigns these stars anyway? There are all sorts of restaurant reviewers
assigning star ratings. I suppose it is quite possible for a local reviewer
to hand out stars for quality of food and service and overlook wine in
places where they cannot sell it.

In article .com>,
wrote:

> Was I wrong or did I miss something???
>
> "The Nest" is a 4 star restaurant nestled in the
> romantic Saddleback Inn, Lake Arrowhead, CA.

Where's that info? The restaurant section of their web site mentions
Chef Karl, their 5-star chef, and a AAA 3-diamond rating, but I'm
missing "4 star restaurant."
--
-Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 7/01/05 Sam I Am!

Dimitri wrote:

> Corkage Fees | Rules for Bringing Wine to a Restaurant
> Bringing wine to a restaurant is a common practice among wine lovers. However,
> there are some unwritten rules to consider should you decide to do this.
>
> The wine should be special, something that is unlikely to be on that restaurant's
> wine list. It might be a wine from a boutique winery or wine that is available
> only at the winery. Or, the wine might be one that has been aging in your wine
> cellar.

As mentioned in my previous post, the province of Ontario has recently followed
Quebec's practice of allowing BYOW restaurants. You can bring whatever wine you
want.

Melba's Jammin' wrote:


> Where's that info? The restaurant section of their web site mentions
> Chef Karl, their 5-star chef, and a AAA 3-diamond rating, but I'm
> missing "4 star restaurant."

Well.. perhaps if you add the 5 (star chef) with the 3 (diamonds) and
average them... you get 4?? LOL

Goomba

The original poster, "akak01000" , was correct when he said:

" McDonalds was good enough
for me. "

Nancree

> I see a few errors. First, when the manager offered you compensation for the meal (which includes ambience) not being to your liking, you should have accepted. That's what the offer was for. Having turned it down, you have no cause for complaint that the check included their normal corkage fee. Second, if the waitress did everything right, you should have tipped the waitress. How on earth is stiffing her going to get back at the manager? Leaving a note saying that her service was fine while ripping off her money is rubbing salt in the wound.
>
>
> I despise having my evening ruined by a crying child so I'm sympathetic, but in this situation, I'm a sympathetic with the manager as well. What were his choices? The best solution would be for upper management to have a rule that no children under age 6 are allowed in the restaurant, but given that upper management does allow babies, the manager has to do the best he can. If he puts the screaming kid in the larger part of the restaurant, he disturbs the whole clientele so he puts the kid in the smaller, more intimate, part where the kid will disturb fewer people. When you complained, all he could do was move you to that part of the restaurant with no screaming kid. Refusing to speak to family about their kid was correct because talking to the parents about hushing the child would have resulted in exactly the same amount of crying. Tired 2 year olds don't listen to reason. Perhaps there was a solution in offering the parents an office in which to rock the baby until h
e fell asleep, but it is likely that the whole restaurant has no such quiet place.
>
>
> Now I'll read the rest of the comments and see if anyone agrees with my views. I see that you wrote 4 hours ago and already have 30 responses.
>
>
> --Lia

Melba's Jammin' wrote:
> In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>
>>Was I wrong or did I miss something???
>>
>>"The Nest" is a 4 star restaurant nestled in the
>>romantic Saddleback Inn, Lake Arrowhead, CA.
>
>
> Where's that info? The restaurant section of their web site mentions
> Chef Karl, their 5-star chef, and a AAA 3-diamond rating, but I'm
> missing "4 star restaurant."

Since we have not heard from the OP since the first post in this
thread, I am starting to believe that this may be a hoax or the work
of a troll as someone suggested before. Also, I do not recall ever
seeing another post by this person, aka01000l0l.

sf wrote:

> Saddleback Inn is a Best Western.

It doesn't seem to be. There's a Saddleback Inn Best Western in OKC,
but the one in California isn't related as far as I can tell.

Phoebe

Dimitri wrote:

> "Karen" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>>Is the Saddleback Inn a hotel?
>
>
> You decide:
>
> http://www.saddlebackinn.com/
>
> Dimitri
>
>

Personally, I wouldn't class this a 4 star restaurant given what we are
used to. Heck, it only accommodates 50 people! I think the OP either
misread or doesn't know what the standards of a 4 star restaurant are.

sarah bennett wrote:

> ~patches~ wrote:
>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>> notbob wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> While I can sympathize with your frustration, you gotta admit it's a
>>>> bit silly to expect a controlled environment in a public place.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wait a sec.... a 4 star restaurant should be a controlled environment.
>>> Screaming kids is what you have to tolerate when you go to family
>>> restaurants and fast food joints where the low lifes cannot control
>>> their
>>> brats.
>>
>>
>>
>> As empty nesters with adult children, I agree. OTOH, the parents
>> couldn't control their child's crying anymore than the manager or
>> owner. The responsible thing for the parents to do would be to leave
>> the restaurant. A 4 star restaurant is not the place for a tired
>> child that just won't settle and the parents should have realized that.
>>
>>
>> IMO, I think the OP has a valid complaint but I don't think he handled
>> it properly.
>>
>>>
>>> I can understand the owner not wanting to talk to the parents. They are
>>> the type of people who would bring their screaming brat into a nice
>>> restaurant and probably never even consider what a pain in the ass their
>>> little prince or princess is to people who do not appreciate. They
>>> offered to move you to another section. You should have moved, or you
>>> could have left and told the manager why. That would give him reason not
>>> to admit rowdy children in the future.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Next time you're looking for a romantic dinner, ask for some kinda
>>>> assurance you'll get some peace and quiet ...that and slip the host a
>>>> bigger tip.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I really hate the idea that you have to bribe a host or hostess to get
>>> what should be expected of a 4 star restaurant. I feel badly for the
>>> waiter who got stiffed for a tip, but then I have my own thing about
>>> being expected to pay a substantially higher tip for service because the
>>> food is so much more expensive. When you go to a nice place one of the
>>> reasons for the food being more expensive is the ambience. That ambience
>>> didn't do much for the OP because it was spoiled by the brat.
>>>
>>
>> At two years old, I hardly think the child was a spoiled brat. The
>> child was simply tired and had enough of life for that day.
>>
>
> any child whose parents can afford to take them to a 4-star restaurant,
> and are willing to inflict the inherent obnoxia of a preschooler on
> people expecting a relatively refined dining experience is likely a
> spoiled brat, yes.

I'm sorry but I disagree. You see we raised our kids and we exposed
them to the finer element in dining. But, we had the rule if they acted
up in any manner, they were out the door and that is how it should be.
They should not be allowed to disrupt other diners and there is a
certain decorum they needed to learn for public dining. So, spoiled
brat no. Perhaps the parents were doing exactly as we did, trying to
teach the kid manners. OTOH, if the kid doesn't want to comply, take
them out of the situation!

>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong but if we're paying for a romatic dinner we
>> expect a certain level of ambience and that doesn't include children.
>> If we wanted to be around children we would go to a fast food joint.
>> So, I think the owner was wrong in this case. I also think the OP and
>> his wife could have quietly told the owner they no longer desired
>> eating there and went on their merry way to enjoy the evening without
>> stiffing someone who had given them good service.
>>
>> Personally, had that happened to us, we would simply had told the
>> owner that if you can't give us the level of service we expect, we
>> will take our business elsewhere.
>
>
> this is what i would have done as well. staying for their meal only
> profited the owner. perhaps i have less tolerance for small children
> where they are not welcome because i have one myself

I just don't understand the OP. He was offered a different table and
compensation. Neither was good enough but perhaps he feels that kids
should not have been there at all. One thing I didn't mention, as empty
nesters we seem to attract kids, and sometimes that is good. But if I
dress up in a nice black classic and DH has a suit on, no I don't want't
them. Sorry, but that would have been the same when our kids were
young. They stayed at home when DH and I wanted a romatic evening out.
Otherwise, we may have had less kids, if you know what I mean

Here's a real pet peeve of ours. DH and I like casinos. We love Las
Vegas. We hate dealing with the kids there since they made it family
oriented. As if! IO(our)O, kids do not belong in casinos for any
reason. We go there to escape and we don't need kids to remind us of
anything, thank you very much! I especially detest kids at any of the
buffets like Harrah's! Great buffet but you can't enjoy your meal with
jr. behind pulling a number.
>
>

sf wrote:

> BTW: Saddleback Inn is a Best Western. It may have upholstered chairs,
> but I haven't found any claim yet that they have a 4 star restaurant.
> Maybe they should raise their prices.

http://www.lakearrowhead.com/nest/index.htm

"Rated #1 by ABC News for the inland empire, The Raven's Nest restaurant is
located within the historic Saddleback Inn at Lake Arrowhead. Chef Karl, our
famous 5 star chef invites you to enjoy his creations and presentations. A
true dining experience featuring foods of the time and wines of the world."

The Saddleback Inn's web site, http://www.saddlebackinn.com/, shows it rated
as AAA approved, but not as a Best Western. I think you might be wrong about
that.

Bob

"nancree" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> According to Peter Aiken
> " It is astounding how some parents
> are so completely selfish and ignore anyone and everyone around them.
> And of
> course the bratty kids will turn out the same way. It's a good argument
> for
> euthanasia. "
> ---------Geez, Peter, I had always thought of you as one of the saner
> posters here. I'm sure the parents were disturbed as well, but
> temporarily unable to quiet their child. Perhaps they weren't
> "completely selfish". Arrowhead is a family resort area, high in the
> mountains, and there are not a lot of restaurant choices. It was a
> holiday/family week-end. Don't you suppose the parents were hoping to
> have a quiet family dinner as well? Baby-sitter prices these days, in
> a resort area, can run more than the dinner tab. Why didn't they/you
> ask to be served in another, quieter area? Go to an adult club. Or ask
> to be served in the bar area. There seem to be more "Crying Babies"
> here on RFC that in the Saddleback Restaurant. From your post, I'd
> guess that YOU were one of the crying babies when you were young.
> Nancree (waiting for more "flack" from you adult cry-babies)
>

I am sure the parents would have been happier if the child had been quiet.
But it wasn't, so what do they do? Just sit there and expect everyone around
them to put up with it, and baby crying is one of the most annoying noises
in existence. They could have taken the kid outside and walked it until it
was quiet, or asked for their food to be sent to their room. They could have
hired a baby sitter (should other people's dinners be ruined because they
are on a budget?). Or, best and most mature, they could have arranged a
vacation that did not require taking a noisy baby to inappropriate places.
But that involves consideration for others which was obviously lacking.

It is really bizarre that you consider someone who wants a quiet and relaxed
ambience in a fancy restaurant to be a "cry baby." Perhaps to you dining is
just shoveling food into your mouth. To many others it is an enjoyable time
for relaxation, companionship, and conversation. To have an icepick stuck in
my ear - which is just about what a squalling baby is like - really ruins
the experience. To have my companion's voice drowned out by a brat's shriek
tends to spoil the moment. Do you really not get this? In a Shoneys or
McDonalds or Cracker Barrel it's different, but at a "nice" restaurant it is
out of place - period.

Perhaps I was a crying baby, but I assure you that my parents had more class
than to take me to a nice restaurant and expect the other patrons to put up
with me. I raised two kids and was fortunate that they were relatively
quiet. Even so I would never have even considered taking them to a nice
restaurant when they were little.

Some people think only of themselves. "I want dinner at this restaurant and
if my noisy baby annoys other people then **** them." Other people are more
considerate. "I want dinner at this restaurant but my noisy baby might annoy
other people so I will make other plans." Which one are you?

Peter Aitken

Margaret Suran wrote on 7/6/2005:

> Since we have not heard from the OP since the first post in this
> thread, I am starting to believe that this may be a hoax or the work
> of a troll as someone suggested before. Also, I do not recall ever
> seeing another post by this person, aka01000l0l.

Maybe so, but an above average troll. Enough detail and angst to have
the ring of authenticity.

rmg wrote on 7/6/2005:

> On second thought, I think you are right about this.

Touche'. Concise, no vitriol/name calling, no boasting about superior
knowledge and experience. Well done!

Of course, as long as you don't post another message saying you've
changed your mind again.

"~patches~" > wrote in message
...
> Dimitri wrote:
>
>> "Karen" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>>
>>>Is the Saddleback Inn a hotel?
>>
>>
>> You decide:
>>
>> http://www.saddlebackinn.com/
>>
>> Dimitri
>
> Personally, I wouldn't class this a 4 star restaurant given what we are
> used to. Heck, it only accommodates 50 people! I think the OP either
> misread or doesn't know what the standards of a 4 star restaurant are.

Do you seriously think that the number of seats is related to the quality of
a restaurant?


--
Peter Aitken

Sheldon wrote:

> Legitimate 4 Star restaurants don't do corkage.

Yes, they do. As usual, when something is outside your experience (dining at
a four-star restaurant, for example), you assume it doesn't exist, and you
post bullshit.

Bob

~patches~ wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > notbob wrote:
> >
> >
> >>While I can sympathize with your frustration, you gotta admit it's a
> >>bit silly to expect a controlled environment in a public place.
> >
> >
> > Wait a sec.... a 4 star restaurant should be a controlled environment.
> > Screaming kids is what you have to tolerate when you go to family
> > restaurants and fast food joints where the low lifes cannot control their
> > brats.
>
> As empty nesters with adult children, I agree. OTOH, the parents
> couldn't control their child's crying anymore than the manager or owner.
> The responsible thing for the parents to do would be to leave the
> restaurant. A 4 star restaurant is not the place for a tired child that
> just won't settle and the parents should have realized that.
>
>
> IMO, I think the OP has a valid complaint but I don't think he handled
> it properly.
>
> >
> > I can understand the owner not wanting to talk to the parents. They are
> > the type of people who would bring their screaming brat into a nice
> > restaurant and probably never even consider what a pain in the ass their
> > little prince or princess is to people who do not appreciate. They
> > offered to move you to another section. You should have moved, or you
> > could have left and told the manager why. That would give him reason not
> > to admit rowdy children in the future.
> >
> >
> >>Next time you're looking for a romantic dinner, ask for some kinda
> >>assurance you'll get some peace and quiet ...that and slip the host a
> >>bigger tip.
> >
> >
> > I really hate the idea that you have to bribe a host or hostess to get
> > what should be expected of a 4 star restaurant. I feel badly for the
> > waiter who got stiffed for a tip, but then I have my own thing about
> > being expected to pay a substantially higher tip for service because the
> > food is so much more expensive. When you go to a nice place one of the
> > reasons for the food being more expensive is the ambience. That ambience
> > didn't do much for the OP because it was spoiled by the brat.
> >
>
> At two years old, I hardly think the child was a spoiled brat. The
> child was simply tired and had enough of life for that day.
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong but if we're paying for a romatic dinner we
> expect a certain level of ambience and that doesn't include children.
> If we wanted to be around children we would go to a fast food joint.
> So, I think the owner was wrong in this case. I also think the OP and
> his wife could have quietly told the owner they no longer desired eating
> there and went on their merry way to enjoy the evening without stiffing
> someone who had given them good service.
>
> Personally, had that happened to us, we would simply had told the owner
> that if you can't give us the level of service we expect, we will take
> our business elsewhere.
> >
> >
When my oldest son was 1 yr old, we went out to a nice restaurant for
dinner one night. As soon as we got there, he started screaming. After
several efforts to quiet him down, we asked if we could take our meal
and a couple of sets of silverware as we were staying at a motel. The
management was so delighted we were leaving, he gladly gave us the
silverware! Of course, we returned it a day or 2 later.
That was in the days when parents were expected to leave if their kids
were behaving badly, as they all do at times. And that was almost 30
years ago (at 29, he behaves quite well in restaurants!). Today, to
expect anything out of an expensive restaurant more than a large bill
is optimistic, at best. It perturbs me that people come to fancy
restaurants, and other places, dressed like they didn't bother to
change after painting the house! They talk incessantly in theaters
during the show and have no sense at all of what's appropriate in a
given situation and what's not. Crying kids are just another symptom of
this unfortunate trend.
I don't think the waiter should be penalized. But I have left noisy
restaurants a few times, after telling the management I won't be back.
That's the best I can do.

THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Peter Aitken wrote:
>
> "Gabby" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "A.C." > wrote in message
> > ...
> > |
> > | wrote:
> > |
> > |
> > | > I left a note on the receipt to the waiter that due to
> > | > the actions of the owner he would not be receiving a
> > | > tip. I also commended him and the chef on their
> > | > service.
> > | >
> > |
> > | i don't agree with this at all. you said the food and service were great
> > but you
> > | didn't tip the waiter. i don't think it was the waiters fault. those
> > folks
> > work
> > | for tips so you basically make him work for free due to something that
> > was
> > not
> > | in his control. you didn't hurt the manager at all. he still got his
> > money
> > and
> > | corkage fee. it was nice that you commended the waiter on his service
> > but
> > | stiffing him was the wrong thing to do in my opinion.
> >
> > I agree with you, AC. OP, you took out your frustration with the
> > unpleasant
> > situation on the poor guy who gave you great service. That, IMNSHO,
> > sucks!
> > Not only did you make him work for free, you actually cost him money since
> > he will pay income tax on the tip he should have received based on the
> > cost
> > of your meal which, based on your description, I suspect wasn't cheap.
> >
> Christ on crutches, this myth that waiters pay tax on tips they do not
> receive is put BS. It is something that is spread by people who are ignorant
> of the tax code and also by waiters who are trying to squeeze money in tips
> they do not deserve.
>
> --
> Peter Aitken

sf wrote:

<snip>

BTW: Saddleback Inn is a Best Western.

According to the Best Western website, there is no BW hotel in Lake
Arrowhead and no BW property within 100 miles with Saddleback in the
name.

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Peter Aitken wrote:
>>
>>>"Gabby" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"A.C." > wrote in message
... | |
>>>>wrote: | | | > I left a note on the receipt to the waiter that due
>>>>to | > the actions of the owner he would not be receiving a | >
>>>>tip. I also commended him and the chef on their | > service. | > | | i
>>>>don't agree with this at all. you said the food and service
>>>>were great but you | didn't tip the waiter. i don't think it was
>>>>the waiters fault. those folks work | for tips so you basically
>>>>make him work for free due to something that was not | in his
>>>>control. you didn't hurt the manager at all. he still got his money
>>>> and | corkage fee. it was nice that you commended the waiter on
>>>>his service but | stiffing him was the wrong thing to do in my
>>>>opinion.
>>>>
>>>>I agree with you, AC. OP, you took out your frustration with the
>>>>unpleasant situation on the poor guy who gave you great service.
>>>>That, IMNSHO, sucks! Not only did you make him work for free, you
>>>>actually cost him money since he will pay income tax on the tip he
>>>>should have received based on the cost of your meal which, based on
>>>>your description, I suspect wasn't cheap.
>>>>
>>>Christ on crutches, this myth that waiters pay tax on tips they do
>>>not receive is put BS. It is something that is spread by people who
>>>are ignorant of the tax code and also by waiters who are trying to
>>>squeeze money in tips they do not deserve.
>>
>>Sorry, Peter, It's true. Over the years, several of my servers had to
>>ante up more money on their taxes because the IRS said they'd
>>"misstated" what they should have claimed.
>>
>>Pastorio
>
> You need to read the IRS regulations as I have. It is very clear that
> servers can keep track of and report actual tips and pay taxes only on that.
> If they do not keep track then the IRS may apply an estimation formula.

The IRS applied a formula that said they owed more than they claimed.
And charged them more.

Pastorio

"nancree" > said:

> According to Peter Aiken
> " It is astounding how some parents
> are so completely selfish and ignore anyone and everyone around them.
> And of
> course the bratty kids will turn out the same way. It's a good argument
> for
> euthanasia. "
> ---------

> Geez, Peter, I had always thought of you as one of the saner
> posters here. I'm sure the parents were disturbed as well, but
> temporarily unable to quiet their child. Perhaps they weren't
> "completely selfish". Arrowhead is a family resort area, high in the
> mountains, and there are not a lot of restaurant choices. It was a
> holiday/family week-end. Don't you suppose the parents were hoping to
> have a quiet family dinner as well? Baby-sitter prices these days, in
> a resort area, can run more than the dinner tab. Why didn't they/you
> ask to be served in another, quieter area? Go to an adult club. Or ask
> to be served in the bar area. There seem to be more "Crying Babies"
> here on RFC that in the Saddleback Restaurant. From your post, I'd
> guess that YOU were one of the crying babies when you were young.
> Nancree (waiting for more "flack" from you adult cry-babies)

I'd have died before bringing my little darling into a restaurant of any
description if she were crying and screaming. Considerate people do not
impose their monsters on innocent bystanders. If the kid is happy and
behaving, fine. Take them to a restaurant. But this never should have
happened. Period.

The problem with people on vacation is that they try to cram too much into
their days and they don't give their very young children an opportunity to
get the sleep that they need. Then they pull this kind of crap on people.

They sound like bad parents who did a disservice to both their own child
and to the unfortunate diners around them.

Carol

--
Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon

"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
...

<snipped>

> The IRS applied a formula that said they owed more than they claimed. And
> charged them more.
>
> Pastorio

Exactly as I said. Thank you.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Dimitri wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > As for "compensation offered," it sounds like you were determined to be
> > annoyed. Restaurants are in the business of selling food and drink. Doing all
> > the service elements is included in the price. Bringing your own food or drink
> > in is rather rude.
>
> > Pastorio
>
> Practices around the country differ but there are some common courtesies:
>
> Dimitri
>
> http://www.winecountrygetaways.com/corkage.html
>
>
> Corkage Fees | Rules for Bringing Wine to a Restaurant
> Bringing wine to a restaurant is a common practice among wine lovers. However,
> there are some unwritten rules to consider should you decide to do this.
>
> The wine should be special, something that is unlikely to be on that restaurant's
> wine list. It might be a wine from a boutique winery or wine that is available
> only at the winery. Or, the wine might be one that has been aging in your wine
> cellar.
>
> It is always a good idea to call ahead and ask the restaurant about their
> corkage fee. Fees will vary, but some restaurants will charge an outrageous
> corkage fee. For example, a recently opened fancy San Francisco restaurant
> charges $50. Expect to pay from $10 to $20 for a corkage fee. Expect to pay a
> higher corkage fee for a magnum of wine.
>
> If you have a bottle of wine that requires chilling, bring the wine chilled in
> an insulated wine tote bag.
>
> When your wine is opened, a common courtesy is to offer the waiter a taste of
> the wine.
>
> More Tips
>
> A few restaurants will waive the corkage fee if you purchase an additional wine
> from the restaurant.
>
> A few wine country restaurants will waive the corkage fee if you bring a wine
> from the wine region where the restaurant is located. We hope this is a growing
> trend in the wine country.
>
> If you are eating at a neighborhood restaurant or any restaurant that does not
> have a great wine list, you can bring a wine that is not so distinctive, but one
> that is of good quality and, of course, not on their wine list.

Thanks, Dimitri. I guess I got too caught up in the details of my
fercocktah little essay to back myself up with a formalized rulz
list... but I think I got it right anyway. I mean it's like Common
Sense 101, why would a restaurant encourage folks to bring their own
hooch, bar tabs account for greater profits than from food... without
their liquor profits most expensive restaurants would quickly go under.
No different from fast fooderies... if no one ordered a drink more
than half would need to close, without Coca Cola Mc'Ds wouldn't be able
to exist... in fact they could easily stay in business from just the
Coke profits, the burgers and fries are only there to help move the
Coke. And in fact they are really selling ice and paper cups... and
most never even gets consumed, little kids gotta have the super size
Cokes but actually take 3-4 sips and it goes in the trash... most kids
don't eat much of their burger either, mostly they fill up on the
fries, another huge cash cow and why the kids are becoming fatter than
blimps, it's really only teh fries. I think they actually lose money
on the burgers, especially when you really think of all the costs
involved with burgers compared with Cokes and fries.

As soon as I tripped over the OP's corkage comment I knew it was a
troll... I guess he was on a roll and just got carried away. Cheap
*******s like that are far more likely to save on the bar tab by
carrying a hip flask for nipping... a half pint flask of gin can make
one mar2ni stretch a long ways through the meal. An awful lot of NYC
citizens who frequent restaurants carry a flask to dine... the three
mar2ni lunch is out of reach for most NYC office workers but not with
the flask, especially since cigarette smoking is out in the workplace
hip flasks filled with vodka are now all the rage.

Sheldon

Kevin_Sheehy wrote:
>
> Margaret Suran wrote on 7/6/2005:
>
>
>>Since we have not heard from the OP since the first post in this
>>thread, I am starting to believe that this may be a hoax or the work
>>of a troll as someone suggested before. Also, I do not recall ever
>>seeing another post by this person, aka01000l0l.
>
>
> Maybe so, but an above average troll. Enough detail and angst to have
> the ring of authenticity.
>
I am also thinking "troll". The OP posted a similar post to
rec.food.drink on Jul 5. The one RFC got had a bit more detail...
Here's the post....

From: "Akak" >
Newsgroups: rec.food.drink
Subject: Crying Child at a Romantic Dinner?
Date: 5 Jul 2005 16:41:44 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 13
Message-ID: .com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.52.209.222
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1120606911 2179 127.0.0.1 (5 Jul 2005
23:41:51 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 23:41:51 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/0.2
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=216.52.209.222;
posting-account=Q7K27Q0AAAC0PFwsdZcDYP2HU4t63ZZF

"The Nest" - Lake Arrowhead, CA / inside the Saddleback Inn

We nicely asked the owner if they could talk to a family when their
child at 8:15pm in a 4-star restaurant began to cry and scream non-stop
to go home. The owner refused to speak to the parents and instead asked
us to move. Because we were already through the first 2 courses, and
half a bottle of our own wine, we decided to move to a loud part of the
restaurant. The romance was ruined and I was upset! I refused
compensation, because the owner was in the wrong. When the $86 tab
came, she didn't even knock off the $10 corkage fee.

Did I miss soemthing here?

On 2005-07-06, Dave Smith > wrote:

> Naw. I just refuse to buy into it.

I'll drink to that!

nb

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Gabby" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "A.C." > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> I left a note on the receipt to the waiter that due to
>>>> the actions of the owner he would not be receiving a
>>>> tip. I also commended him and the chef on their
>>>> service.
>>>>
>>>
>>> i don't agree with this at all. you said the food and service were
>>> great but you didn't tip the waiter. i don't think it was the
>>> waiters fault. those
>> folks
>> work
>>> for tips so you basically make him work for free due to something
>>> that
>> was
>> not
>>> in his control. you didn't hurt the manager at all. he still got his
>> money
>> and
>>> corkage fee. it was nice that you commended the waiter on his
>>> service but stiffing him was the wrong thing to do in my opinion.
>>
>> I agree with you, AC. OP, you took out your frustration with the
>> unpleasant
>> situation on the poor guy who gave you great service. That, IMNSHO,
>> sucks!
>> Not only did you make him work for free, you actually cost him money
>> since he will pay income tax on the tip he should have received
>> based on the cost
>> of your meal which, based on your description, I suspect wasn't
>> cheap.
>>
> Christ on crutches, this myth that waiters pay tax on tips they do not
> receive is put BS. It is something that is spread by people who are
> ignorant of the tax code and also by waiters who are trying to
> squeeze money in tips they do not deserve.

When did you wait tables, Peter? The restaurant reports tips as a
percentage of sales per server, whether they earn that much in tips or not.

Jill

Peter Aitken wrote:

> Some people think only of themselves. "I want dinner at this restaurant and
> if my noisy baby annoys other people then **** them." Other people are more
> considerate. "I want dinner at this restaurant but my noisy baby might annoy
> other people so I will make other plans."


The way I look at it, babies are like cigarettes.


Some people like to smoke in restaurants. The people who don't smoke
find the smell offensive. Some smokers are considerate of non-smokers
and find a way to smoke and not bother anybody (in their rooms). Others
aren't nice about it. As far as I'm concerned, it is up to the
restaurant to make rules about whether or not they allow smoking.
(Local laws apply too, but for the sake of my analogy, skip that part.)
If the restaurant management allows smoking, they may lose business on
the part of the patrons who hate smoke. If they don't allow smoking,
they may lose business from the smokers. One thing the management can't
do is tell a party that they're allowed to smoke and then change their
minds when someone complains. I wouldn't blame the smokers for lighting
up their cigarettes in a restaurant that has said that it allows
smoking. Instead, I'd point out to management that they'd get more
business from me if they could provide me a place where I could eat
without the stench of cigarette smoke.


Same with babies. Some people have babies. Babies cry. Some people
are bothered by crying babies. Some people with babies manage to have
their crying babies where they're not bothering anybody (in their
rooms). Others disingenuously maintain that crying babies shouldn't
bother others. Here's what I don't get: Why don't people blame the
restaurant management for allowing babies the same as they blame the
management for allowing smoking? It is practically the same thing! If
the management makes the rules, they're going to lose some business on
the part of either the baby parents or those who don't want to eat
around crying babies. Ideally, restaurants could have noisy sections
the same as they have smoking sections where they'd throw all the babies
and cell phone users together (along with the folks who dine while
operating jackhammers), but that's not likely to happen. In the mean
time, it makes sense, when making the reservation, to ask about the
restaurant's policy about babies and decide accordingly.


When I read the original post, I assumed that the restaurant was fairly
fancy and free-standing. I didn't picture a place attached to a hotel.
I've never been in a free-standing restaurant that had space for parents
to quiet babies until they fall asleep. (Churches often have
comfortable "cry-rooms" where parents can walk back and forth with the
babies until they're quiet.) Now that I'm picturing a restaurant with a
hotel attached, I do think it should have been possible for the manager
gently to insist that the parents take the babies upstairs to their room
and have room service deliver the meals-- UNLESS the parents had been
promised that the baby would be allowed. If that was the case, the
management was in no position to change their minds mid-stream.


--Lia

Julia wrote:

> Now that I'm picturing a restaurant with a hotel attached, I do think it
> should have been possible for the manager gently to insist that the
> parents take the babies upstairs to their room and have room service
> deliver the meals-- UNLESS the parents had been promised that the baby
> would be allowed. If that was the case, the management was in no position
> to change their minds mid-stream.

You assume that the parents of the crying child were guests at the hotel.
They might not have been.

Bob

On Wed 06 Jul 2005 05:31:50p, Julia Altshuler wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> Peter Aitken wrote:
>
>> Some people think only of themselves. "I want dinner at this restaurant
>> and if my noisy baby annoys other people then **** them." Other people
>> are more considerate. "I want dinner at this restaurant but my noisy
>> baby might annoy other people so I will make other plans."
>
>
> The way I look at it, babies are like cigarettes.
>
>
> Some people like to smoke in restaurants. The people who don't smoke
> find the smell offensive. Some smokers are considerate of non-smokers
> and find a way to smoke and not bother anybody (in their rooms). Others
> aren't nice about it. As far as I'm concerned, it is up to the
> restaurant to make rules about whether or not they allow smoking.
> (Local laws apply too, but for the sake of my analogy, skip that part.)
> If the restaurant management allows smoking, they may lose business
> on
> the part of the patrons who hate smoke. If they don't allow smoking,
> they may lose business from the smokers. One thing the management can't
> do is tell a party that they're allowed to smoke and then change their
> minds when someone complains. I wouldn't blame the smokers for lighting
> up their cigarettes in a restaurant that has said that it allows
> smoking. Instead, I'd point out to management that they'd get more
> business from me if they could provide me a place where I could eat
> without the stench of cigarette smoke.
>
>
> Same with babies. Some people have babies. Babies cry. Some people
> are bothered by crying babies. Some people with babies manage to have
> their crying babies where they're not bothering anybody (in their
> rooms). Others disingenuously maintain that crying babies shouldn't
> bother others. Here's what I don't get: Why don't people blame the
> restaurant management for allowing babies the same as they blame the
> management for allowing smoking? It is practically the same thing! If
> the management makes the rules, they're going to lose some business on
> the part of either the baby parents or those who don't want to eat
> around crying babies. Ideally, restaurants could have noisy sections
> the same as they have smoking sections where they'd throw all the babies
> and cell phone users together (along with the folks who dine while
> operating jackhammers), but that's not likely to happen. In the mean
> time, it makes sense, when making the reservation, to ask about the
> restaurant's policy about babies and decide accordingly.
>
>
> When I read the original post, I assumed that the restaurant was fairly
> fancy and free-standing. I didn't picture a place attached to a hotel.
> I've never been in a free-standing restaurant that had space for parents
> to quiet babies until they fall asleep. (Churches often have
> comfortable "cry-rooms" where parents can walk back and forth with the
> babies until they're quiet.) Now that I'm picturing a restaurant with a
> hotel attached, I do think it should have been possible for the manager
> gently to insist that the parents take the babies upstairs to their room
> and have room service deliver the meals-- UNLESS the parents had been
> promised that the baby would be allowed. If that was the case, the
> management was in no position to change their minds mid-stream.

We were lucky for a while to have a local steakhouse which had an "adult
only" room. It was a large room and smoking was permitted in 1/3 of it.
Their ventilation and filtering system isolated the smoking area quite
well. It was heaven! Their "family" room was all non-smoking. Guess they
figured that parents shouldn't smoke in front of the children. :-)

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
____________________________________________

Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0527-0, 07/04/2005
Tested on: 7/6/2005 5:53:52 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

cathyxyz wrote:

<snip>

>did I miss something here?

I don't know. I merely said that - if it's a troll - then it's a better
than average troll.

~patches~ wrote:

> > any child whose parents can afford to take them to a 4-star restaurant,
> > and are willing to inflict the inherent obnoxia of a preschooler on
> > people expecting a relatively refined dining experience is likely a
> > spoiled brat, yes.
>
> I'm sorry but I disagree. You see we raised our kids and we exposed
> them to the finer element in dining. But, we had the rule if they acted
> up in any manner, they were out the door and that is how it should be.
> They should not be allowed to disrupt other diners and there is a
> certain decorum they needed to learn for public dining.

I certainly admire that sentiment, but I have to ask, if you were part way
through the main course and into a bottle of wine and the kids started acting up
would you really get up and leave? I have seen to many parents allow their kids
to run around in restaurants.

In article .com>,
"nancree" > wrote:

> According to Peter Aiken
> " It is astounding how some parents are so completely selfish and
> ignore anyone and everyone around them. And of course the bratty kids
> will turn out the same way.

Not necessarily.

> ---------Geez, Peter, I had always thought of you as one of the saner
> posters here. I'm sure the parents were disturbed as well, but
> temporarily unable to quiet their child.

Perhaps they couldn't have quieted the kid, but one of them could have
removed the kid from the premises.
--
-Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 7/01/05 Sam I Am!