On 2015-10-03 8:40 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 08:25:14 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/2/2015 8:48 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 10:13:09 AM UTC-4, graham wrote:
>>>> Some bridezilla with no class:
>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...eals/73074356/
>>>
>>> The bride et al are just practicing gracious hosting. Ha. They HAD to expect some no-shows.
>>
>> The woman in the video from the bride magazine said plan for 10% in
>> either direction - no-shows or people who show up but didn't bother to
>> RSVP. You'd think the caterer would know this.
>
> 10% in either direction is a 20% difference. That is a lot to deal
> with. That is why the couple give a count, by a certain date, as to
> how many will show. That becomes the agreed upon pricing and the B&G
> should just suck it up after they, hopefully, have done due diligence
> to chance down the RSVPs.
>
> But baby sitters cancel, people get sick, work interferes, planes are
> delayed.
>
> This isn't the first time I have seen hosts for an event try to bill
> no-shows. Happened with a kiddie party and made the news some months
> ago..
>
I remember that case. Put the two of them together and perhaps we have
to consider that perhaps the hosts are the kind of people who other
people might not have trouble dumping plans with. I am sure we all have
friends or relatives we aren't all that keen on and might have second
thoughts about attending some event.

It is interesting to note that the woman who didn't go to the wedding
said that her mother, who was supposed to watch the kids, called at the
last minute to say that something had come up. It would appear that both
mother and daughter can use that sort of excuse to back out of commitments.

On 10/3/2015 9:47 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-10-03 8:40 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 08:25:14 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/2/2015 8:48 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>>>> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 10:13:09 AM UTC-4, graham wrote:
>>>>> Some bridezilla with no class:
>>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...eals/73074356/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The bride et al are just practicing gracious hosting. Ha. They HAD
>>>> to expect some no-shows.
>>>
>>> The woman in the video from the bride magazine said plan for 10% in
>>> either direction - no-shows or people who show up but didn't bother to
>>> RSVP. You'd think the caterer would know this.
>>
>> 10% in either direction is a 20% difference. That is a lot to deal
>> with. That is why the couple give a count, by a certain date, as to
>> how many will show. That becomes the agreed upon pricing and the B&G
>> should just suck it up after they, hopefully, have done due diligence
>> to chance down the RSVPs.
>>
>> But baby sitters cancel, people get sick, work interferes, planes are
>> delayed.
>>
>> This isn't the first time I have seen hosts for an event try to bill
>> no-shows. Happened with a kiddie party and made the news some months
>> ago..
>>
> I remember that case. Put the two of them together and perhaps we have
> to consider that perhaps the hosts are the kind of people who other
> people might not have trouble dumping plans with.

Then why bother to RSVP? I have no problem declining invitations if I'm
not interested in attending.

In the case of the kids party, when the parents discovered there was a
conflict they *should* have called to say so. But should they get a
bill? I don't think so.

> I am sure we all have
> friends or relatives we aren't all that keen on and might have second
> thoughts about attending some event.
>
> It is interesting to note that the woman who didn't go to the wedding
> said that her mother, who was supposed to watch the kids, called at the
> last minute to say that something had come up. It would appear that both
> mother and daughter can use that sort of excuse to back out of commitments.
>
What excuse? Stuff happens. Would the Bride & Groom still have sent
them a bill for the missed dinner if they'd been involved in a car
accident on the way? Gee, we expected you to show up and eat that
walley even though you were bleeding profusely. Sending a bill is just
tacky.

Jill

On 2015-10-03 10:30 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 10/3/2015 9:47 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2015-10-03 8:40 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 08:25:14 -0400, jmcquown >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/2/2015 8:48 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 10:13:09 AM UTC-4, graham wrote:
>>>>>> Some bridezilla with no class:
>>>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...eals/73074356/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The bride et al are just practicing gracious hosting. Ha. They HAD
>>>>> to expect some no-shows.
>>>>
>>>> The woman in the video from the bride magazine said plan for 10% in
>>>> either direction - no-shows or people who show up but didn't bother to
>>>> RSVP. You'd think the caterer would know this.
>>>
>>> 10% in either direction is a 20% difference. That is a lot to deal
>>> with. That is why the couple give a count, by a certain date, as to
>>> how many will show. That becomes the agreed upon pricing and the B&G
>>> should just suck it up after they, hopefully, have done due diligence
>>> to chance down the RSVPs.
>>>
>>> But baby sitters cancel, people get sick, work interferes, planes are
>>> delayed.
>>>
>>> This isn't the first time I have seen hosts for an event try to bill
>>> no-shows. Happened with a kiddie party and made the news some months
>>> ago..
>>>
>> I remember that case. Put the two of them together and perhaps we have
>> to consider that perhaps the hosts are the kind of people who other
>> people might not have trouble dumping plans with.
>
> Then why bother to RSVP? I have no problem declining invitations if I'm
> not interested in attending.

Keeping in mind that this is happening in a group of people, I might
suggest that they might be too shallow to actually do the right thing,
which is to RSVP with regrets or to accept and to show up.

A few years ago I tried to back out of a wedding. Invitations had been
sent out on paper and RSVPs were to be by email (the couple were both
working overseas and coming back for the wedding). I had replied in a
timely manner, but a situation came up and I wanted to cancel. I was
going to send an email to cancel our acceptance, but my wife would not
let me send it. She said that we had accepted and were, therefore,
obligated to go.

As it turned out, there was a stroke of luck. I had a riding accident. I
got thrown off a horse and broke my ribs. I was able to attend the
ceremony and the dinner, but we didn't stick around. We left as soon as
dinner was over.



> In the case of the kids party, when the parents discovered there was a
> conflict they *should* have called to say so. But should they get a
> bill? I don't think so.

Their excuse was kind of lame. They realized that the boy "was
double-booked and due to spend time with his grandparents, which he
did." WTF? The parents could have been told that the boy was invited to
a birthday party and an event like that should trump a grandparent
visit. The parents could have come earlier or later.



> What excuse? Stuff happens. Would the Bride & Groom still have sent
> them a bill for the missed dinner if they'd been involved in a car
> accident on the way? Gee, we expected you to show up and eat that
> walley even though you were bleeding profusely. Sending a bill is just
> tacky.
>


It was not a complete waste. It gave them a good excuse to sever a
dysfunctional relationship.

On 10/3/2015 10:30 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 10/3/2015 9:47 AM, Dave Smith wrote:

>> It is interesting to note that the woman who didn't go to the wedding
>> said that her mother, who was supposed to watch the kids, called at the
>> last minute to say that something had come up. It would appear that both
>> mother and daughter can use that sort of excuse to back out of
>> commitments.

The mother had found out she'd been exposed to some
communicable ailment and didn't think it was wise to potentially
spread it to the other grands.

> What excuse? Stuff happens. Would the Bride & Groom still have sent
> them a bill for the missed dinner if they'd been involved in a car
> accident on the way? Gee, we expected you to show up and eat that
> walley even though you were bleeding profusely. Sending a bill is just
> tacky.

It's just dumb. By the time the people realized they couldn't
make it, that meal was bought and it doesn't matter if anyone
ate it or not.

I wonder if the new husband knew about the bill. Maybe they
were both inflicted with wedding induced insanity. They'll
never live that one down.

Isn't $35 a person on the low side for wedding meals? I guess
it's good the bill wasn't $175.

nancy

On 2015-10-03 11:08 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

>> What excuse? Stuff happens. Would the Bride & Groom still have sent
>> them a bill for the missed dinner if they'd been involved in a car
>> accident on the way? Gee, we expected you to show up and eat that
>> walley even though you were bleeding profusely. Sending a bill is just
>> tacky.
>
> It's just dumb. By the time the people realized they couldn't
> make it, that meal was bought and it doesn't matter if anyone
> ate it or not.

That is my take on it. If they had showed up and eaten the meal the
hosts would have footed the bill. It did not cost them anything extra
for them not to show.

That does not change my view that the guest's excuse was lame. I am
sure they could have found another sitter. They should have been able to
find a sitter. The guest's mother had no problem calling and cancelling
at the last minute because "something came up" so she shares her
mother's lack of commitment. The bill will likely dissolve their
relationship and they will be well rid of each other.


> I wonder if the new husband knew about the bill. Maybe they
> were both inflicted with wedding induced insanity. They'll
> never live that one down.

Naw. They will pass it off on the guest's bad manners.


> Isn't $35 a person on the low side for wedding meals? I guess
> it's good the bill wasn't $175.

From what I have seen lately, that is downright cheap for a wedding
dinner. I will assume it was a cash bar.

And who serves walleye to wedding party guests. I would not have a
problem with it, but I like fish. A lot of people do not. I have to say
it is unusual to serve only fish, and that walleye is an odd choice of
fish to serve.

On 10/3/2015 9:28 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> I have to say it is unusual to serve only fish, and that walleye is an
> odd choice of fish to serve.


Boo ****ing hoo then, you lonely old fart.

ESAD.

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

On 10/3/2015 11:08 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 10/3/2015 10:30 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 10/3/2015 9:47 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>> It is interesting to note that the woman who didn't go to the wedding
>>> said that her mother, who was supposed to watch the kids, called at the
>>> last minute to say that something had come up. It would appear that both
>>> mother and daughter can use that sort of excuse to back out of
>>> commitments.
>
> The mother had found out she'd been exposed to some
> communicable ailment and didn't think it was wise to potentially
> spread it to the other grands.
>
>> What excuse? Stuff happens. Would the Bride & Groom still have sent
>> them a bill for the missed dinner if they'd been involved in a car
>> accident on the way? Gee, we expected you to show up and eat that
>> walley even though you were bleeding profusely. Sending a bill is just
>> tacky.
>
> It's just dumb. By the time the people realized they couldn't
> make it, that meal was bought and it doesn't matter if anyone
> ate it or not.
>
Exactly!

> I wonder if the new husband knew about the bill. Maybe they
> were both inflicted with wedding induced insanity. They'll
> never live that one down.
>
Sure sounds like a bit of insanity to me. We got married, you have to
help pay for it.

> Isn't $35 a person on the low side for wedding meals? I guess
> it's good the bill wasn't $175.
>
> nancy
>
I don't know about formal after-wedding dinners. I've only ever been to
a couple of rehearsal dinners (I was in the wedding party) but there
wasn't a sit down dinner afterwards. Buffet style.

I'm thinking the price of that dinner might be on the high side for
Walleye (pike) in Minnesota. Isn't that one of the most common fresh
fish available in that area? It doesn't exactly sound fancy-schmancy
even if served "herb crusted".

Jill

On 10/3/2015 11:28 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-10-03 11:08 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> What excuse? Stuff happens. Would the Bride & Groom still have sent
>>> them a bill for the missed dinner if they'd been involved in a car
>>> accident on the way? Gee, we expected you to show up and eat that
>>> walley even though you were bleeding profusely. Sending a bill is just
>>> tacky.
>>
>> It's just dumb. By the time the people realized they couldn't
>> make it, that meal was bought and it doesn't matter if anyone
>> ate it or not.
>
> That is my take on it. If they had showed up and eaten the meal the
> hosts would have footed the bill. It did not cost them anything extra
> for them not to show.
>
> That does not change my view that the guest's excuse was lame. I am
> sure they could have found another sitter. They should have been able to
> find a sitter.

I don't have kids but that's hardly a fair assumption. You expect them
to have a babysitter at their beck and call at the last minute? "I need
you here in an hour". Really?

> The guest's mother had no problem calling and cancelling
> at the last minute because "something came up"

Things do happen, Dave. Real life sometimes interferes with the best
intentions.

> so she shares her mother's lack of commitment.

That's a silly thing to say.

> The bill will likely dissolve their relationship and they will be well rid of each other.

I sure wouldn't have anything to do with the money-grubbing idiots. I
don't deal with my brother who sent me a bill for our mom's funeral,
either, while he was stamping his foot about not getting his way.

>>if the new husband knew about the bill. Maybe they
>> were both inflicted with wedding induced insanity. They'll
>> never live that one down.
>
> Naw. They will pass it off on the guest's bad manners.
>
They already have. To their detriment.

>> Isn't $35 a person on the low side for wedding meals? I guess
>> it's good the bill wasn't $175.
>
> From what I have seen lately, that is downright cheap for a wedding
> dinner. I will assume it was a cash bar.
>
> And who serves walleye to wedding party guests. I would not have a
> problem with it, but I like fish. A lot of people do not. I have to say
> it is unusual to serve only fish, and that walleye is an odd choice of
> fish to serve.
>
Walleye is common and cheap for that area. Usually there would be a
choice of two meals, wouldn't there? Not everyone eats fish. Well,
maybe everyone in Minnesota does.

My only real experience with such dinners would be fancy holiday affairs
at work. There was always more than one entree, usually involving
chicken or roast beef. Rarely fish and never *only* fish.

Jill

In article >,
says...
> It is interesting to note that the woman who didn't go to the wedding
> said that her mother, who was supposed to watch the kids, called at the
> last minute to say that something had come up. It would appear that both
> mother and daughter can use that sort of excuse to back out of commitments.
>

Have you never had to cancel a social arrangement/break a promise of
help at the last minute, because of sudden illness, or some domestic
disaster?

Janet UK

On 03/10/2015 6:40 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 08:25:14 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 10/2/2015 8:48 PM, Kalmia wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 10:13:09 AM UTC-4, graham wrote:
>>>> Some bridezilla with no class:
>>>> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...eals/73074356/
>>>
>>> The bride et al are just practicing gracious hosting. Ha. They HAD to expect some no-shows.
>>
>> The woman in the video from the bride magazine said plan for 10% in
>> either direction - no-shows or people who show up but didn't bother to
>> RSVP. You'd think the caterer would know this.
>
> 10% in either direction is a 20% difference. That is a lot to deal
> with. That is why the couple give a count, by a certain date, as to
> how many will show. That becomes the agreed upon pricing and the B&G
> should just suck it up after they, hopefully, have done due diligence
> to chance down the RSVPs.
>
> But baby sitters cancel, people get sick, work interferes, planes are
> delayed.
>

I've heard of the opposite happening. Guests, who hadn't bothered to
RSVP, turn up with a bunch of friends and expect to be fed and catered!

A friend of mine was paying for the reception for her daughter's wedding
at a high-end restaurant. Only those who RSVP'd and attended the
ceremony were given directions!
Graham

On 2015-10-03 11:52, jmcquown wrote:

> That is my take on it. If they had showed up and eaten the meal the
>> hosts would have footed the bill. It did not cost them anything extra
>> for them not to show.
>>
>> That does not change my view that the guest's excuse was lame. I am
>> sure they could have found another sitter. They should have been able to
>> find a sitter.
>
> I don't have kids but that's hardly a fair assumption. You expect them
> to have a babysitter at their beck and call at the last minute? "I need
> you here in an hour". Really?

We only had one child, but we had a several different sitters that we
used. If one was busy we would call another, and it was sometimes last
minute. I just have to wonder how valid the excuse was. The woman is
basically passing the blame over to her mother, claiming that she had
called at the last minute to cancel on sitting because "something came up".



>
>> The guest's mother had no problem calling and cancelling
>> at the last minute because "something came up"
>
> Things do happen, Dave. Real life sometimes interferes with the best
> intentions.

Yes. Things do happen. In this case we have a woman who did not attend a
wedding to which she had RSVPed because her mother had cancelled out at
the last minute. It seems that lack of commitment is a family trait.

> I sure wouldn't have anything to do with the money-grubbing idiots. I
> don't deal with my brother who sent me a bill for our mom's funeral,
> either, while he was stamping his foot about not getting his way.


>> And who serves walleye to wedding party guests. I would not have a
>> problem with it, but I like fish. A lot of people do not. I have to say
>> it is unusual to serve only fish, and that walleye is an odd choice of
>> fish to serve.
>>
> Walleye is common and cheap for that area. Usually there would be a
> choice of two meals, wouldn't there? Not everyone eats fish. Well,
> maybe everyone in Minnesota does.

Yep. It is common and inexpensive. It's good, but..... never heard of it
being served at a wedding. I can't see anyone serving a crowd Walleye,
unless it was meal put on by the local anglers and fishermen's club.

On 10/3/2015 11:28 AM, Dave Smith wrote:

>
> And who serves walleye to wedding party guests. I would not have a
> problem with it, but I like fish. A lot of people do not. I have to say
> it is unusual to serve only fish, and that walleye is an odd choice of
> fish to serve.
>

Last two weddings we went to we had a choice in the RSVP of a beef,
fish, vegetarian option.

On 2015-10-03 11:52, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> It is interesting to note that the woman who didn't go to the wedding
>> said that her mother, who was supposed to watch the kids, called at the
>> last minute to say that something had come up. It would appear that both
>> mother and daughter can use that sort of excuse to back out of commitments.
>>
>
> Have you never had to cancel a social arrangement/break a promise of
> help at the last minute, because of sudden illness, or some domestic
> disaster?
>

Yes I have, but this is a series of cancellations. The woman said that
her mother cancelled out on sitting because "something came up",
deflecting the blame for her failure to honour her commitment on her
mother's failure to commit. I can't imagine a mother backing out on
babysitting at the last minute, but if the mother is prone to something
like that I can see that the apple may not have fallen far from the tree.

On 10/3/2015 11:52 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>> It is interesting to note that the woman who didn't go to the wedding
>> said that her mother, who was supposed to watch the kids, called at the
>> last minute to say that something had come up. It would appear that both
>> mother and daughter can use that sort of excuse to back out of commitments.
>>
>
> Have you never had to cancel a social arrangement/break a promise of
> help at the last minute, because of sudden illness, or some domestic
> disaster?
>
> Janet UK
>

Can happen. We don't know if it was a death in the family or if a
neighbor asked if she wanted to go to the mall. Without knowing that,
we really can't judge if it was legit.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/3/2015 11:28 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> And who serves walleye to wedding party guests. I would not have a
>> problem with it, but I like fish. A lot of people do not. I have to say
>> it is unusual to serve only fish, and that walleye is an odd choice of
>> fish to serve.
>>
>
> Last two weddings we went to we had a choice in the RSVP of a beef, fish,
> vegetarian option.

I've never gone to a wedding where "billing" someone would even be an issue,
but then I only go to weddings of *close* friends and family.

Cheri

On 2015-10-03 11:08, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 10/3/2015 10:30 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 10/3/2015 9:47 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>> It is interesting to note that the woman who didn't go to the wedding
>>> said that her mother, who was supposed to watch the kids, called at the
>>> last minute to say that something had come up. It would appear that both
>>> mother and daughter can use that sort of excuse to back out of
>>> commitments.
>
> The mother had found out she'd been exposed to some
> communicable ailment and didn't think it was wise to potentially
> spread it to the other grands.
>

Where did that come from? I followed the link and it quotes the woman as
saying "She called at the last minute and had something come up and said
'I can't make it,'"

"Cheri" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 10/3/2015 11:28 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> And who serves walleye to wedding party guests. I would not have a
>>> problem with it, but I like fish. A lot of people do not. I have to say
>>> it is unusual to serve only fish, and that walleye is an odd choice of
>>> fish to serve.
>>>
>>
>> Last two weddings we went to we had a choice in the RSVP of a beef, fish,
>> vegetarian option.
>
> I've never gone to a wedding where "billing" someone would even be an
> issue, but then I only go to weddings of *close* friends and family.

Yes, same here so it all sounds very strange
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 10/3/2015 2:47 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-10-03 11:08, Nancy Young wrote:

>> The mother had found out she'd been exposed to some
>> communicable ailment and didn't think it was wise to potentially
>> spread it to the other grands.
>>
>
> Where did that come from? I followed the link and it quotes the woman as
> saying "She called at the last minute and had something come up and said
> 'I can't make it,'"

I didn't make it up, that's what I heard on tv.

I'll believe that's true unless someone can prove
otherwise. Makes more sense than The mother decided
not to show up for no good reason.

nancy

On 2015-10-03 13:14, graham wrote:
> On 03/10/2015 6:40 AM, Boron Elgar wrote:

> I've heard of the opposite happening. Guests, who hadn't bothered to
> RSVP, turn up with a bunch of friends and expect to be fed and catered!
>
> A friend of mine was paying for the reception for her daughter's wedding
> at a high-end restaurant. Only those who RSVP'd and attended the
> ceremony were given directions!

My most recent wedding was my nieves last month in California. The
invitation included an envelope with the RSVP and a menu list to check
off. They offered steak, chicken Parmesan or broiled salmon. Anyone who
failed to RSVP would be fool to expect a dinner. The servers brought
out the dishes and knew who ordered what. The seating had been arranged
and name tags at the assigned seats, so they wouldn't get a seat if they
had not accepted.

On 2015-10-03 14:37, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 10/3/2015 11:28 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> And who serves walleye to wedding party guests. I would not have a
>> problem with it, but I like fish. A lot of people do not. I have to say
>> it is unusual to serve only fish, and that walleye is an odd choice of
>> fish to serve.
>>
>
> Last two weddings we went to we had a choice in the RSVP of a beef,
> fish, vegetarian option.
>

My last one was also a pre-ordering. Three choices, beef, chicken or
fish. Seating was assigned and place cards set out. Anyone who had not
RSVPed should not expect to be seated or get a meal.

On 2015-10-03 14:41, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> Can happen. We don't know if it was a death in the family or if a
> neighbor asked if she wanted to go to the mall. Without knowing that,
> we really can't judge if it was legit.


All we know from the article is "She called at the last minute and had
something come up and said 'I can't make it,'"

There are sometimes good excuses. There are sometimes lame excuses. If
there is no explanation given.... then the excuse is lame.

On 10/3/2015 2:47 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-10-03 11:08, Nancy Young wrote:

>> The mother had found out she'd been exposed to some
>> communicable ailment and didn't think it was wise to potentially
>> spread it to the other grands.
>>
>
> Where did that come from? I followed the link and it quotes the woman as
> saying "She called at the last minute and had something come up and said
> 'I can't make it,'"

Here's the quote:

€œWe were excited to have a night out and we got a call from my mom
saying that my brothers daughter was sick with hand-foot-and-mouth
disease and my mom had been exposed and didnt want to expose my kids,€�
Baker recalled. €œShe needed to be with her and she wouldnt be able to
make it.€�

nancy

On 2015-10-03 14:55, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 10/3/2015 2:47 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2015-10-03 11:08, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> The mother had found out she'd been exposed to some
>>> communicable ailment and didn't think it was wise to potentially
>>> spread it to the other grands.
>>>
>>
>> Where did that come from? I followed the link and it quotes the woman as
>> saying "She called at the last minute and had something come up and said
>> 'I can't make it,'"
>
> I didn't make it up, that's what I heard on tv.
>
> I'll believe that's true unless someone can prove
> otherwise. Makes more sense than The mother decided
> not to show up for no good reason.
>
>


I had to look through a lot of sites before I came across on that
claimed that her brother's child had come down with hand foot and mouth
disease. I am surprised that there was no mention of the brother
cancelling and being hit with a bill too. However, it is interesting to
read that the bride was her cousin, so that leads me to question why
mother's excuse was not that she was going to the same wedding. I am
still smelling a rat.

>

On 10/3/2015 3:56 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-10-03 14:55, Nancy Young wrote:

>> I'll believe that's true unless someone can prove
>> otherwise. Makes more sense than The mother decided
>> not to show up for no good reason.

> I had to look through a lot of sites before I came across on that
> claimed that her brother's child had come down with hand foot and mouth
> disease. I am surprised that there was no mention of the brother
> cancelling and being hit with a bill too. However, it is interesting to
> read that the bride was her cousin, so that leads me to question why
> mother's excuse was not that she was going to the same wedding. I am
> still smelling a rat.

I don't know whose cousin it was, his or hers. It certainly doesn't
seem like the mother or the brother had been invited or had
expectations of attending.

nancy

On 10/3/2015 1:14 PM, graham wrote:

>
> I've heard of the opposite happening. Guests, who hadn't bothered to
> RSVP, turn up with a bunch of friends and expect to be fed and catered!
>
> A friend of mine was paying for the reception for her daughter's wedding
> at a high-end restaurant. Only those who RSVP'd and attended the
> ceremony were given directions!
> Graham
>

Cannot imagine the type of person that would bring uninvited friends nor
can I imagine the friends that would go along. I bet they respond to
the FREE BEER image

On 10/3/2015 4:19 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 10/3/2015 1:14 PM, graham wrote:
>
>>
>> I've heard of the opposite happening. Guests, who hadn't bothered to
>> RSVP, turn up with a bunch of friends and expect to be fed and catered!
>>
>> A friend of mine was paying for the reception for her daughter's wedding
>> at a high-end restaurant. Only those who RSVP'd and attended the
>> ceremony were given directions!

> Cannot imagine the type of person that would bring uninvited friends nor
> can I imagine the friends that would go along. I bet they respond to
> the FREE BEER image

I have come across somewhere that in some cultures everyone and
their cousin is assumed to be invited and the whole invitation
and rsvp routine just doesn't fly.

Other than that, I see a lot of people do not understand that
if the invitation doesn't say And Guest, you don't get to
invite along a friend.

nancy

On 2015-10-03 4:42 PM, Nancy Young wrote:

> Other than that, I see a lot of people do not understand that
> if the invitation doesn't say And Guest, you don't get to
> invite along a friend.
>

Reminds me of a former friend who earned the nickname Cheap Bob. A
bunch of us used to organize parties. They would be pot luck BYOB.
Instead of bringing a dish and something to drink, Bob would brings guests.

On 2015-10-03 4:02 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 10/3/2015 3:56 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2015-10-03 14:55, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> I'll believe that's true unless someone can prove
>>> otherwise. Makes more sense than The mother decided
>>> not to show up for no good reason.
>
>> I had to look through a lot of sites before I came across on that
>> claimed that her brother's child had come down with hand foot and mouth
>> disease. I am surprised that there was no mention of the brother
>> cancelling and being hit with a bill too. However, it is interesting to
>> read that the bride was her cousin, so that leads me to question why
>> mother's excuse was not that she was going to the same wedding. I am
>> still smelling a rat.
>
> I don't know whose cousin it was, his or hers. It certainly doesn't
> seem like the mother or the brother had been invited or had
> expectations of attending.
>
>

In two different interviews the woman said "my cousin". In the CNN
report the mother seems to be suggesting a slightly different account.
It says that the grandmother had to attend to another grandchild who was
sick that day. The grandmother said "I had to tell Jessica, Sorry, not
this time around..." which makes it look like a last minute request,
not a last minute call from the grandmother.

Jessica is certainly enjoying her 15 minutes of fame. That is a family
problem that is not going to go away soon.

jmcquown wrote:
> On 10/3/2015 11:28 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2015-10-03 11:08 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>>> What excuse? Stuff happens. Would the Bride & Groom still have sent
>>>> them a bill for the missed dinner if they'd been involved in a car
>>>> accident on the way? Gee, we expected you to show up and eat that
>>>> walley even though you were bleeding profusely. Sending a bill is
>>>> just
>>>> tacky.
>>>
>>> It's just dumb. By the time the people realized they couldn't
>>> make it, that meal was bought and it doesn't matter if anyone
>>> ate it or not.
>>
>> That is my take on it. If they had showed up and eaten the meal the
>> hosts would have footed the bill. It did not cost them anything extra
>> for them not to show.
>>
>> That does not change my view that the guest's excuse was lame. I am
>> sure they could have found another sitter. They should have been able to
>> find a sitter.
>
> I don't have kids but that's hardly a fair assumption. You expect
> them to have a babysitter at their beck and call at the last minute?
> "I need you here in an hour". Really?
>
>> The guest's mother had no problem calling and cancelling
>> at the last minute because "something came up"
>
> Things do happen, Dave. Real life sometimes interferes with the best
> intentions.
>
>> so she shares her mother's lack of commitment.
>
> That's a silly thing to say.
>
>> The bill will likely dissolve their relationship and they will be
>> well rid of each other.
>
> I sure wouldn't have anything to do with the money-grubbing idiots. I
> don't deal with my brother who sent me a bill for our mom's funeral,
> either, while he was stamping his foot about not getting his way.
>
>>> if the new husband knew about the bill. Maybe they
>>> were both inflicted with wedding induced insanity. They'll
>>> never live that one down.
>>
>> Naw. They will pass it off on the guest's bad manners.
>>
> They already have. To their detriment.
>
>>> Isn't $35 a person on the low side for wedding meals? I guess
>>> it's good the bill wasn't $175.
>>
>> From what I have seen lately, that is downright cheap for a wedding
>> dinner. I will assume it was a cash bar.
>>
>> And who serves walleye to wedding party guests. I would not have a
>> problem with it, but I like fish. A lot of people do not. I have to say
>> it is unusual to serve only fish, and that walleye is an odd choice of
>> fish to serve.
>>
> Walleye is common and cheap for that area. Usually there would be a
> choice of two meals, wouldn't there? Not everyone eats fish. Well,
> maybe everyone in Minnesota does.
>
> My only real experience with such dinners would be fancy holiday
> affairs at work. There was always more than one entree, usually
> involving chicken or roast beef. Rarely fish and never *only* fish.
>
> Jill
>

Walleye are rarely fished commercially. Mahi-mahi is cheaper.

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 5:08:13 PM UTC-10, Alex wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
> > On 10/3/2015 11:28 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> >> On 2015-10-03 11:08 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> >>
> >>>> What excuse? Stuff happens. Would the Bride & Groom still have sent
> >>>> them a bill for the missed dinner if they'd been involved in a car
> >>>> accident on the way? Gee, we expected you to show up and eat that
> >>>> walley even though you were bleeding profusely. Sending a bill is
> >>>> just
> >>>> tacky.
> >>>
> >>> It's just dumb. By the time the people realized they couldn't
> >>> make it, that meal was bought and it doesn't matter if anyone
> >>> ate it or not.
> >>
> >> That is my take on it. If they had showed up and eaten the meal the
> >> hosts would have footed the bill. It did not cost them anything extra
> >> for them not to show.
> >>
> >> That does not change my view that the guest's excuse was lame. I am
> >> sure they could have found another sitter. They should have been able to
> >> find a sitter.
> >
> > I don't have kids but that's hardly a fair assumption. You expect
> > them to have a babysitter at their beck and call at the last minute?
> > "I need you here in an hour". Really?
> >
> >> The guest's mother had no problem calling and cancelling
> >> at the last minute because "something came up"
> >
> > Things do happen, Dave. Real life sometimes interferes with the best
> > intentions.
> >
> >> so she shares her mother's lack of commitment.
> >
> > That's a silly thing to say.
> >
> >> The bill will likely dissolve their relationship and they will be
> >> well rid of each other.
> >
> > I sure wouldn't have anything to do with the money-grubbing idiots. I
> > don't deal with my brother who sent me a bill for our mom's funeral,
> > either, while he was stamping his foot about not getting his way.
> >
> >>> if the new husband knew about the bill. Maybe they
> >>> were both inflicted with wedding induced insanity. They'll
> >>> never live that one down.
> >>
> >> Naw. They will pass it off on the guest's bad manners.
> >>
> > They already have. To their detriment.
> >
> >>> Isn't $35 a person on the low side for wedding meals? I guess
> >>> it's good the bill wasn't $175.
> >>
> >> From what I have seen lately, that is downright cheap for a wedding
> >> dinner. I will assume it was a cash bar.
> >>
> >> And who serves walleye to wedding party guests. I would not have a
> >> problem with it, but I like fish. A lot of people do not. I have to say
> >> it is unusual to serve only fish, and that walleye is an odd choice of
> >> fish to serve.
> >>
> > Walleye is common and cheap for that area. Usually there would be a
> > choice of two meals, wouldn't there? Not everyone eats fish. Well,
> > maybe everyone in Minnesota does.
> >
> > My only real experience with such dinners would be fancy holiday
> > affairs at work. There was always more than one entree, usually
> > involving chicken or roast beef. Rarely fish and never *only* fish.
> >
> > Jill
> >
>
> Walleye are rarely fished commercially. Mahi-mahi is cheaper.

It's getting harder to find mahi-mahi in Hawaii. Who would have guessed? Tonight I'm gonna fry some saba. I'll dump some salt on the skin and let it sit for a while, then the salt gets wiped off and the fish fried. Ideally, the saba should be grilled over a hot charcoal fire but I'm just gonna dump in it a wok with hot oil and fry the shit out of it for a very short time. Hoo boy, it's gonna be great!

wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Sat, 03 Oct 2015 07:18:41 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Most of the time now, I believe a womans money is as good
> >> as a mans, and that's a good thing.
> >
> > Most of the time now?
>
> In the 70s a friends husband died. She, like me, had always been the
> one who paid the bills and knew where they stood financially. The
> first thing the bank did was cancel her Visa card ! When she went in
> to find out the reason 'Your huband is dead' seemed to be it. A big
> row ensued and they agreed to give her a card with a $200 limit.
>
> She said nothing, took the card and went to another bank and talked
> them into giving her a card with $5000 limit to lure her away from the
> bank they had banked with for about twenty years. She then had an
> enjoyable time returning to bank #1 to close all the accounts and end
> the Visa card.
>
> It was a lesson though and years later when David died it was as if
> the bank did not know. In the interim I had opened accounts in my
> name only, his name only, and joint. So the only ones probated were
> his, made it much easier on me at a difficult point in time.
>
> I remember a phone call back in the 80s - I answered and a man asked
> for the 'head of the household' do you mean 'the man in the house?'
> 'yes thankyou' - so I handed the phone to David and I heard him saying
> 'I'm not really sure what insurance we do or don't have or might need.
> My wife does all that sort of thing' pause then David said 'no, I
> think it would be pointless to hand the phone to her now'

LOL! I've had calls like that here. I also do the finances and we
have a split banking situation, with some all in my name, some joint.

--

On 03/10/2015 6:07 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 02/10/2015 11:55 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 10/2/2015 1:25 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>>>> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 11:46:52 AM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>> Likely a gift chosen from some ridiculous wedding registry. They'll be
>>>>> lucky if they get a thank-you card.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jill
>>>>
>>>> Wedding registries are not stupid. They are most useful.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.richardfisher.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> Some are. Others are filled out mostly by the store salesperson with
>>> stuff the couple does not really care about hen starting out. They make
>>> sense if properly done. For most young couples, cash is a great gift. I
>>> knew we used it for things we really needed, not sterling silver pickle
>>> forks.
>>
>> One of the most useful wedding gifts my sister received, almost 50 years
>> ago, was a garbage can (dustbin in the UK) filled with cleaning materials,
>> brushes etc.
>
>
> Mmmmmmmmmmm, no.
>
> I would say that would be a great weeddsing shower gift but a mop and a
> bucket at a wedding? No. Tacky tacky tacky. A year's worth of maid
> service instead? Excellent.
>
At UK weddings, the gifts are not put on display (at least, that used to
be the custom) but delivered directly to the bride or groom. Frou-frou
wrapping is therefore not necessary.

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 5:56:15 PM UTC-10, graham wrote:
> On 03/10/2015 6:07 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> > "graham" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 02/10/2015 11:55 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>> On 10/2/2015 1:25 PM, Helpful person wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 11:46:52 AM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Likely a gift chosen from some ridiculous wedding registry. They'll be
> >>>>> lucky if they get a thank-you card.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jill
> >>>>
> >>>> Wedding registries are not stupid. They are most useful.
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.richardfisher.com
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Some are. Others are filled out mostly by the store salesperson with
> >>> stuff the couple does not really care about hen starting out. They make
> >>> sense if properly done. For most young couples, cash is a great gift. I
> >>> knew we used it for things we really needed, not sterling silver pickle
> >>> forks.
> >>
> >> One of the most useful wedding gifts my sister received, almost 50 years
> >> ago, was a garbage can (dustbin in the UK) filled with cleaning materials,
> >> brushes etc.
> >
> >
> > Mmmmmmmmmmm, no.
> >
> > I would say that would be a great weeddsing shower gift but a mop and a
> > bucket at a wedding? No. Tacky tacky tacky. A year's worth of maid
> > service instead? Excellent.
> >
> At UK weddings, the gifts are not put on display (at least, that used to
> be the custom) but delivered directly to the bride or groom. Frou-frou
> wrapping is therefore not necessary.

This sounds like a good idea to me. Putting gifts out for display is pretty crass in my estimation. That's Americans for you.

On 10/4/2015 12:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 5:56:15 PM UTC-10, graham wrote:

>> At UK weddings, the gifts are not put on display (at least, that used to
>> be the custom) but delivered directly to the bride or groom. Frou-frou
>> wrapping is therefore not necessary.
>
> This sounds like a good idea to me. Putting gifts out for display is
> pretty crass in my estimation. That's Americans for you.

You aren't supposed to bring presents to the wedding, even
in America.

Of course, you'd want to send them wrapped beautifully.

nancy

On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 6:28:08 PM UTC-10, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 10/4/2015 12:05 AM, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 3, 2015 at 5:56:15 PM UTC-10, graham wrote:
>
> >> At UK weddings, the gifts are not put on display (at least, that used to
> >> be the custom) but delivered directly to the bride or groom. Frou-frou
> >> wrapping is therefore not necessary.
> >
> > This sounds like a good idea to me. Putting gifts out for display is
> > pretty crass in my estimation. That's Americans for you.
>
> You aren't supposed to bring presents to the wedding, even
> in America.
>
> Of course, you'd want to send them wrapped beautifully.
>
> nancy

Sorry then, I should have said, that's Hawaiians for you.

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Cheri" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 10/3/2015 11:28 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And who serves walleye to wedding party guests. I would not have a
>>>> problem with it, but I like fish. A lot of people do not. I have to say
>>>> it is unusual to serve only fish, and that walleye is an odd choice of
>>>> fish to serve.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Last two weddings we went to we had a choice in the RSVP of a beef,
>>> fish, vegetarian option.
>>
>> I've never gone to a wedding where "billing" someone would even be an
>> issue, but then I only go to weddings of *close* friends and family.
>
> Yes, same here so it all sounds very strange

Once I went to a wedding of the son of a life long friend, the kind of
friend that you talk to every day for 50 or so years, and they actually
wanted you to send money for their honeymoon, which was bizarre to me, and I
know things change as time goes by, but I was taken aback with it, really. I
did send money to the cruise comapany, and told myself I will never do that
again. I will give money in a card and that's it. These days, I don't attend
weddings unless they are my family, people that I know will appreciate my
being there, and will appreciate whatever I give them and act like they are
happy to receive it!

Cheri

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/3/2015 2:47 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2015-10-03 11:08, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>>> The mother had found out she'd been exposed to some
>>> communicable ailment and didn't think it was wise to potentially
>>> spread it to the other grands.
>>>
>>
>> Where did that come from? I followed the link and it quotes the woman as
>> saying "She called at the last minute and had something come up and said
>> 'I can't make it,'"
>
> I didn't make it up, that's what I heard on tv.
>
> I'll believe that's true unless someone can prove
> otherwise. Makes more sense than The mother decided
> not to show up for no good reason.
>
> nancy

It was reported on channel 13 KOVR where I am, so I believe it's true.

Cheri
>

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 10/2/2015 1:25 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 11:46:52 AM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Likely a gift chosen from some ridiculous wedding registry. They'll
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> lucky if they get a thank-you card.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jill
>>>>>
>>>>> Wedding registries are not stupid. They are most useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.richardfisher.com
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some are. Others are filled out mostly by the store salesperson with
>>>> stuff the couple does not really care about hen starting out. They
>>>> make sense if properly done. For most young couples, cash is a great
>>>> gift. I knew we used it for things we really needed, not sterling
>>>> silver pickle forks.
>>>
>>> I posted it before but I once insulted a bride with my choice of gifts.
>>> She apparently had no need for it and said, in the reception line, "I'm
>>> sure we'll find something to do with it." And it was in her registry.
>>
>> Disgraceful! How well did you know her?
>
> Sister of my girlfriend at the time. Knew her for like 5 years.

Nasty and ungrateful piece of work. You ought to have asked for it back if
she had that attitude.

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

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ophelia" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> "Xeno" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 3/10/2015 7:35 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 10/2/2015 1:25 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 11:46:52 AM UTC-4, jmcquown wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Likely a gift chosen from some ridiculous wedding registry.
>>>>>>>> They'll be
>>>>>>>> lucky if they get a thank-you card.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wedding registries are not stupid. They are most useful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.richardfisher.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some are. Others are filled out mostly by the store salesperson with
>>>>>> stuff the couple does not really care about hen starting out. They
>>>>>> make sense if properly done. For most young couples, cash is a great
>>>>>> gift. I knew we used it for things we really needed, not sterling
>>>>>> silver pickle forks.
>>>>>
>>>>> I posted it before but I once insulted a bride with my choice of
>>>>> gifts. She apparently had no need for it and said, in the reception
>>>>> line, "I'm sure we'll find something to do with it." And it was in
>>>>> her registry.
>>>>
>>>> Disgraceful! How well did you know her?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> After the wedding - not at all! ;-)
>>
>> If she had been known to me, I would have asked for my gift to be
>> returned.
>
>
> I wonder why she put it in the registry in the first place. It was a
> very elegant French press with matching glassware. I knew she didn't
> drink coffee but FPs are great for tea, too.

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

"Paul M. Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Boron Elgar" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 18:26:49 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On 10/2/2015 6:13 PM, wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:05:37 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the most useful wedding gifts my sister received, almost 50
>>>>> years
>>>>> ago, was a garbage can (dustbin in the UK) filled with cleaning
>>>>> materials, brushes etc.
>>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>>> Yes, good thinking. When you are starting out it adds up getting all
>>>> the odds and ends like that which you need. No fun spending money on
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>I started buying things like that (including basic kitchen items) when I
>>>was a teenager.
>>>
>>>Jill
>>
>>
>> People are getting married later and later, often being on their own
>> or living together before marriage. The "usual" sort of wedding gifts
>> from don't make as much sense now.
>
> Hmmmm you mean the Tom and Jerry set and the pineapple upside down cake
> mold was a bad idea?

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