"Dog3" wrote in message
6...
sf deliciously posted in
:

On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 03:42:30 GMT, Dog3
wrote:


I don't think courtesy was the issue here. The original poster did
not want to be interrupted while engaged in conversation. I'd wager
there are few waitperons that have time to stand and watch one table
for a lull in conversation before checking back.

If they were well trained, they wouldn't need to wait for a
lull in the conversation and they would NEVER use that
phrase.

What phrase would you suggest? The diners closed their mouths for 10
seconds? So, how does one train waitstaff to find a time when the diners
are not engaged in some sort of conversation to check back? Then of
course
there are the diners that say nothing during a meal and resent the check
back intrusion, on and on and on. If a person wants no interaction with
wait staff there is no point in dining out; Unless of course the entire
staff has been alerted prior to your visit. Quite frankly, in my
experience, the experienced diner has no qualm with the restaurant's
training. The diner is there to enjoy the food and the experience. The
waitstaff is part of that experience. If you don't want the social
interaction with waitstaff, go to one of those homestyle buffets where
wait
staff is very scarce.

Michael


"Social interaction with waitstaff?" Are you joking? I most certainly do
*not* want any social interaction with them - rather I want a professional
waiter-diner interaction. The idea of interacting socially with the waiter
reminds me of the places were he will sit or crouch at your table, tell you
his name, and get all pally. Pul-lease!

If a waiter wants to check up on you there's no need to interrupt. All he
needs to do is come over and stand expectantly where he can be seen, saying
nothing. The diners can ignore him and continue with the conversation or
not, as they choose.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.