Nancy Young wrote:
> "-L." > wrote in
>
>>>Now my gripe. Restaurants that have TV's to watch sports matches while
>>>eating, are just not my idea of fun.
>>
>>I will second that. Unfortunately the above-mentioned restrauant also
>>is a sports-bar-type place (The Ram in Lake Oswego, OR, if anyone knows
>>of it.) They make a killer chicken sandwich though, so we like to go
>>there.
>
>
> Since we prefer to sit at the bar, obviously the tvs don't bother me. They
> are usually very low volume, if not muted. Can't say as I've ever seen them
> in the dining areas except for those who can see the bar from their table.
>
> nancy
>
>
>
Well you are lucky Nancy. I have no objections to TV's in the bar, but
not in the dining areas. Most of the places that have these darn TV's
have the volume so loud that you can't have a decent conversation, even
in the dining sections. Not to mention the cheering and shouting from
the people watching. Like I said, we try to avoid these types of
restaurants, but it's getting more and more difficult. Unfortunately,
the majority of South Africans are "sports-fanatics", so the restaurants
tend to cater for that - they make a fortune serving drinks when there
is a big match on.

Cheers
Cathy

--
I don't suffer from insanity - I enjoy every minute of it

Edwin Pawlowski > wrote in message
m...
> > [calling a restaurant on the phone while inside it]
> I used a similar ploy when we were being overlooked at
> a restaurant. [..] We gave our name to the host and
> waited. And waited, and waited. Others (regulars?)
> came in after us and were being seated. I called the owner
> and told him we were leaving and gave the reason why.

We know someone that speaks up more and more frequently, now that he's
enjoying his senior moment, about this very situation. His desire to be
seated is almost like he's on the clock or taking medicine. He won't
even do walk-in at a restaurant (think Joe Pesci's "LW2" drive-thru
rant) because he dislikes it when someone that comes in after is seated
before. It's fun to see his forehead veins bulge and pulse.

> [..] It pays to speak up.

It does indeed, as long as you keep it professional and even-tempered.
The moment you yell, you lose all your advantages and customer support.

The Ranger

fwiw imo
The crying child has zip to do with the main
cruxt of the situation.

side bar
Expecting a toddler to conduct themselves
in any shape, form or fashion that isn't
basic needs being meant is foolish. Its
not going to happen. Nor should it.

One needs verbal skills, a bladder that's
capable of being controlled and more life
history then being upright for the last x
number of months. Yes, it will come in
time. But not the issue here.

So. Do not plan a romantic evening anywhere
a child might occur. Crying or otherwise.
Poor planing on the OP's part.

The OP IMO was looking for confirmation he
handled the situation properly. With possibly
some "atta boys" and "way to go dude" tossed in.

By his own admission he was offered some sort
of compensation but was too upset and or nervous
to avail himself of same.

So. The Waiter gets stiffed as the result of his
lack of saying yes, thank you, that would be
very nice?

Did the Waiter cry?
Did the Waiter destroy the romantic ambiance?
Did the Waiter preform his duties in a an
appropriate manner?

Last but not least.
Was the Waiter to blame?

I don't think so.

The lack of a gratuity did Nothing to
offset OP's less then stellar dining
experience. It stiffed the person
that actually lived up to expectations.

dead horse slugging

Go Back. Find him. Tip_HIM.
Apologize.

jajd

spaketh thusly:

> The lack of a gratuity did Nothing to
> offset OP's less then stellar dining
> experience. It stiffed the person
> that actually lived up to expectations.
>
> dead horse slugging
>
> Go Back. Find him. Tip_HIM.
> Apologize.

Best answer I've read yet. The only answer, actually.

(Sorry if I missed it in the previous thousand or so deceased
equine body blows.)



--
_________________________________________
If u are gonna say that I said something,
please say what I REALLY said. ($1 Earl)

"I-zheet M'drurz" > wrote in message
.. .
> spaketh thusly:
>
>> The lack of a gratuity did Nothing to
>> offset OP's less then stellar dining
>> experience. It stiffed the person
>> that actually lived up to expectations.
>>
>> dead horse slugging
>>
>> Go Back. Find him. Tip_HIM.
>> Apologize.
>
> Best answer I've read yet. The only answer, actually.
>
> (Sorry if I missed it in the previous thousand or so deceased
> equine body blows.)

Hello, many people said that already, myself included.

nancy

>Hello, many people said that already, myself included.

>nancy

But But..
Well shoot. Here I was baskin and stuff.. <g>
I think what OP was referring to was how many
times I've slugged that particular horse.

But not to the exclusion of other horse sluggers.
The horse has officially been slugged by many.
Not as many as I would have thought based on
the circumstances but "shrug" slugged.

Now if aka would simply post the error of his
ways has been seen. The waiter has been
tipped along with an apology offered, we could
all head out to the barn with lumps of sugar
and apples in our pockets along with our own
apologies to attend to.. <g>

jajd

spaketh thusly:

>>Hello, many people said that already, myself included.
>>nancy

> But But..
> Well shoot. Here I was baskin and stuff.. <g>
> I think what OP was referring to was how many
> times I've slugged that particular horse.

Nah, nothing personal. I was refering to the half million
posts I've skipped over the last couple of days. Something
made me read -one- today (yours) and I was honestly expecting
to view that traditional Usenet moved-on-to-a-totally-
different-topic-OK-we-never-did-change-the-subject-line thing
going on. What a pleasant surprise to find a valid post that
I agreed with!

> But not to the exclusion of other horse sluggers.
> The horse has officially been slugged by many.

This horse has been beaten to a liquid state.

--
_________________________________________
If u are gonna say that I said something,
please say what I REALLY said. ($1 Earl)

> wrote in message
> side bar
> Expecting a toddler to conduct themselves
> in any shape, form or fashion that isn't
> basic needs being meant is foolish. Its
> not going to happen. Nor should it.

> So. Do not plan a romantic evening anywhere
> a child might occur. Crying or otherwise.
> Poor planing on the OP's part.

Every diner, romantic or not, is paying to have food served in a hospitable
manner.

I'd not complain about some kid's noise at a McD's, Chucky Cheese type
place, but even in those places, a child should not be crying for ten
minutes. That is the fault of the parents who are inconsiderate of others
and just plain ignorant. The child needed some sort of attention. It is the
responsibility of the parent to find the problem and fix it. Or remove the
child until he calms down.

The waiter is not at fault and should be tipped.
The child is not at fault as he is only reacting as a child does
The manager is a wus that is afraid to do his job and control his business
The parents are inconsiderate ignorant people that probably should not have
kids.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

<snip>

> The parents are inconsiderate ignorant people that probably should not have
> kids.

I was with you until this last comment. They might be very decent
people who simply made a bad judgment and didn't handle it well.
Assuming the story is true.

They could have gone to Safeway and got a loaf of bread, some Bologna
and a six pack. They could have gone to Denny's. There are all kinds of
could have's.

Try sitting on the Singapore to Newark flight with a screaming kid.

Nancy Young wrote:
> "-L." > wrote in
> >>
> >> Now my gripe. Restaurants that have TV's to watch sports matches while
> >> eating, are just not my idea of fun.
> >
> > I will second that. Unfortunately the above-mentioned restrauant also
> > is a sports-bar-type place (The Ram in Lake Oswego, OR, if anyone knows
> > of it.) They make a killer chicken sandwich though, so we like to go
> > there.
>
> Since we prefer to sit at the bar, obviously the tvs don't bother me. They
> are usually very low volume, if not muted. Can't say as I've ever seen them
> in the dining areas except for those who can see the bar from their table.
>
> nancy

In this particular restaurant, they are everywhere. Every table has a
good view of at least one.

-L.

-L. spaketh thusly:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>> "-L." > wrote in
>>> ? wrote:

>> >> Now my gripe. Restaurants that have TV's to watch sports
>> >> matches while eating, are just not my idea of fun.

I couldn't care less, but obviously it is to their target market.

>> > I will second that. Unfortunately the above-mentioned
>> > restrauant also is a sports-bar-type place (The Ram in Lake
>> > Oswego, OR, if anyone knows of it.) They make a killer
>> > chicken sandwich though, so we like to go there.

That's why they make those big, square styrofoam containers and
plastic bags.

>> Since we prefer to sit at the bar, obviously the tvs don't
>> bother me. They are usually very low volume, if not muted.
>> Can't say as I've ever seen them in the dining areas except for
>> those who can see the bar from their table.

> In this particular restaurant, they are everywhere. Every table
> has a good view of at least one.

Uhhh, yeah. That's the idea. What part of this picture are you
having trouble comprehending?


--
_________________________________________
If u are gonna say that I said something,
please say what I REALLY said. ($1 Earl)

Mi e' parso che Nathalie Chiva abbia scritto:

>> And the ones who do so are not Saints, they're just
>> respectful persons.
>> The ones Akak found, alas, were not respectful.

> Vilco, am I wrong or is there something with Italian
> childrearing these days?

"Childrearing"? I don't know this word, and my little Collins is
of no help. Does it have something to do with "supporting", or
"allowing everything"?

> I go a *lot* to Italy, and I seem to meet the most
> preposterous children there. Mind you, I don't
> really mind because it means that Italians think
> *my* children are little saints <g>.

Preposterous is similar to "absurd", what do you mean with it?
Noisy brats? If so, I agreee: children are every year more
active, noisier and difficult to keep concentrated on anything.
My sister teaches in a elementary school (ages 6 to 11) and she
says that the situation is getting worse every day.
Too much of something, sure... maybe a combination of bad feeding
habits and increasingly violent TV shows and moms continuosly
taxying them to courses (dance, soccer, swimming, piano...) thus
making theyr life as time-scheduled and stressing as an adult's
one ?
--
Vilco
Think Pink , Drink Rose'

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 08:14:34 GMT, "Vilco" > wrote:

>Mi e' parso che Nathalie Chiva abbia scritto:
>> Vilco, am I wrong or is there something with Italian
>> childrearing these days?
>
>"Childrearing"? I don't know this word, and my little Collins is
>of no help. Does it have something to do with "supporting", or
>"allowing everything"?

Childrearing is the action of bringing up children (allevare bambini).
>
>> I go a *lot* to Italy, and I seem to meet the most
>> preposterous children there. Mind you, I don't
>> really mind because it means that Italians think
>> *my* children are little saints <g>.
>
>Preposterous is similar to "absurd", what do you mean with it?

In this context, I meant "impossible", i.e. insufferable. But then,
English is not my first language, so maybe my use of the term is
wrong, can a native speaker correct me?

Nathalie in Switzerland

>Noisy brats? If so, I agreee: children are every year more
>active, noisier and difficult to keep concentrated on anything.
>My sister teaches in a elementary school (ages 6 to 11) and she
>says that the situation is getting worse every day.
>Too much of something, sure... maybe a combination of bad feeding
>habits and increasingly violent TV shows and moms continuosly
>taxying them to courses (dance, soccer, swimming, piano...) thus
>making theyr life as time-scheduled and stressing as an adult's
>one ?