"Sheldon" > wrote in message
oups.com...

<snip>



> 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

You're mostly right on the money. Here in California small places that are
waiting for their on-sale beer & wine license will encourage such practices
during the waiting period. OTOH an on-sale general license (hard liquor) cost a
small fortune and may be out of reach for the little operations. I have had
some of the best meals and the little places.

Regards,

Dimitri

"~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.


That depends on the rating system if 4 or 5 star system. As I had mentioned we
spent an anniversary there and had dinner at that restaurant. The service was
impeccable and the food was more than innovative, well presented, and very
tasty. I think on a scale of 1 to 5 it an easy 3.5 and maybe a 4. FYI there
are several parts to Arrowhead and this is one of the better places to eat. The
central part around the lake is a "Big Money - Old Money" area of Southern
California. IIRC the movie Magnificent Obsession was filmed up there.

Dimitri

On Thu 07 Jul 2005 05:23:46a, Nathalie Chiva wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:25:10 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
> > wrote:
>
>>That's not true at all, and you should know better. Bringing your own
>>wine and paying a corkage fee is accepted practice at many restaurants
>>all over the world.
>
> Well, then, "all other the world" definitely does not include France,
> Switzerland and Italy. Never saw any restaurant in those 3 countries
> which accepted that you bring your own wine - so much so that I had
> trouvle understanding the concept when I encountered it in the US. The
> only exception is stuff like wedding parties: You can arrange with the
> place where the party is to to bring your own wine and then you pay
> corkage.
>
> Nathalie in Switzerland
>

Could it have originated as a result of prohibition in the US? After the
repeal of prohibition by the Federal Government, individual state and
county governments created their own laws regarding the sale and
consumption of alcoholic beverages. IINM, some states/counties still do.
For example, some eating establishments may not sell booze, but they are
allowed to accomodate the patron who brings their own. In some areas
there were no bars, but there were "clubs" where you could keep your own
personal bottle or stock of booze and have it served to you. In some
areas this may even still exist. (Not suggesting that the restaurant in
question fell into this category.)

--
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): 0527-1, 07/07/2005
Tested on: 7/7/2005 7:53:29 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote

> Could it have originated as a result of prohibition in the US? After the
> repeal of prohibition by the Federal Government, individual state and
> county governments created their own laws regarding the sale and
> consumption of alcoholic beverages. IINM, some states/counties still do.
> For example, some eating establishments may not sell booze, but they are
> allowed to accomodate the patron who brings their own.

Around here many towns have limited the number of liquor liscences.
This is because they don't want booze sold on every corner, even in
restaurants. Even if a restaurant qualifies for a license doesn't mean
there are any available. They have to wait until someone else goes out
of business. And, no, they are not cheap, last I heard.

nancy

Uh, what rude comment was that?

gjgee > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Uh, what rude comment was that?

Probably the part you forgot to include to help reference the question:
> > The owner came by our table and refused to speak to the
> > family and told us we could be moved to a louder part
> > of the restaurant if we didn't like the noise from the
> > child.

Having seen deboned, spineless weenie-managers slink away from
customer-confrontations of any type, it doesn't surprise me that he
moved the complainer. Probably with a dismissive, "We have another table
available -- in the main dining area. It'll be noisier but that's all we
can do."

What was needed in this particular situation was a Gray Fox (or three).
They'd've quickly taken the parents to task and there would not be a
reoccurrence (at least with that particular couple) of them bringing an
over-tired, squalling, beyond-fidgeting child to another
special-occasion restaurant. There's just something about reaching that
milestone of 70 that causes them to speak their minds without care and
worry.

The Ranger

Dave Smith wrote:

> ~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.
>
>
Yes I would leave. When the kids were infants, if they started crying,
one of us usually me would take the crying kid out of the restaurant.
As they got older, they were not allowed to run around in restaurants
because we feel that is rude and can be quite dangerous. We took the
same approach when shopping too. Our theory is that while our kids are
the centre of our universe, they aren't the centre of anyone else's
universe so they were taught from a very young age that certain
behaviours are not appropriate in public.

Funny story - Years ago when our oldest was about 3 years old and the
next was 2, we stopped at a cute restaurant in Duluth, Minnisota for
breakfast. Well, you've never seen such well behaved kids! I think it
had something to do with the huge stuffed bear in a standing pose with
mouth wide open about 4 ft from our table

Dave Smith wrote:
> "-L." wrote:
>
>
>>You were wrong not to tip the waiter if his service was good. The
>>manager did what he could to accomodate you. You're being a prat.
>>
>>That being said, the couple should not bring young children to that
>>restaurant except on "family night", if they offer one
>
>
> If they must allow young children into a nice restaurant, they could at
> least put the people with screaming kids in the noisy part and leave
> the quiet section for those who are there for a quiet meal.
>
>
>
I agree. We never take our toddler to a "nice restaurant". It's not good
for the toddler, the parents or fair to the other diners. We have taken
our toddler out four of five times to a restaurant - but usually only at
lunch-time (the latest was 5pm). And then we take her to kid-friendly
places, hopefully with a garden of some sort. The one we like best has
swings and jumping-castles etc. in their garden especially for the kids.
The food is actually surprisingly good too! I had mussels and sole the
last time we were there. The waiters and management are very helpful and
friendly and are very used to the kids. They of course have a "kiddies
menu" as well. The "inside" of this place is for the adults!

Now my gripe. Restaurants that have TV's to watch sports matches while
eating, are just not my idea of fun. We got caught like that once - we
decided to try a restaurant that had recently opened... All was going
well until we had just finished our starters. The manager walked in and
switched on a TV in our section of the restaurant, followed by another
man with a drink in his hand, who promptly sat down at a table directly
in front of the TV. When we objected to this, the manager said "The TV
in the bar is not working, so this customer has to watch the match
somewhere". We asked for the bill, paid it and left. (And we still
tipped the waiter). We just don't go into new places anymore, without
checking for TV's... That's a quick way to spoil a romantic dinner too,
IMO

Cathy

On 7 Jul 2005 08:18:28 +0200, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Wed 06 Jul 2005 10:15:45p, sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> > I have no sympathy for him.
>
> You are cruel and without pity! :-))

That's true, but I have an adorable smile and an infectious laugh!
LOL

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:03:36 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> 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.

When I was in Canada last, we noticed particularly in the city of
Montreal there were restaurants that didn't have any wine list at all,
but we could go to the local liquor store (usually on that block) and
buy whatever struck our fancy to bring in. The restaurant not only
corked the bottle, it supplied glasses and even a wine cooler for no
charge. I was amazed and delighted.

Julia Altshuler wrote:

> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> 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. :-)
>
>
>
> In my dreamworld, restaurants would have baby rooms, smoking rooms,
> cellphone rooms, loud music rooms, baby but no smoking rooms, smoking
> but no cellphone rooms, cellphones but no music rooms and every possible
> permutation so you could go in and demand a dining area that didn't
> allow smoking or babies but did allow pontification and wordplay. Others
> could ask for a place where they could bring their pet wombat.
>
>
> --Lia
>
Frankly, cellphones bother me more than crying babies. We were at one
restaurant that was quite nice with a great view of the water and
evening sunset. The food was very good and the service excellent. I
felt sorry for the lady at the next table. The gentleman she was with,
talked almost non-stop on his cell phone. He even talked on it while
eating! He had a voice that you could help hearing, not quite yelling
but certainly not quiet. We felt like we knew him forever after
listening to his many personal conversations. IMO, this was very rude
especially to his companion. He gave the underlying message she wasn't
worth his attention.

On Thu 07 Jul 2005 09:14:49a, sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 7 Jul 2005 08:18:28 +0200, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
>> On Wed 06 Jul 2005 10:15:45p, sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>> > I have no sympathy for him.
>>
>> You are cruel and without pity! :-))
>
> That's true, but I have an adorable smile and an infectious laugh!
> LOL
>

I'll take the smile, but I don't need an infection! :-)


--
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): 0527-1, 07/07/2005
Tested on: 7/7/2005 9:20:58 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Youth in asia ? I thought it happened in California ?

Never Mind.

Youth in asia ? I thought it happened in California ?

Never Mind.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:08:57 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> 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.

I really like that practice. It's a win-win situation. The customer
can bring a wine of choice that hasn't been marked up 3-6 times and
the restaurant doesn't have to deal with drunken customers.

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:27:02 GMT, 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." Which one are you?


Peter, they were there BEFORE the whining OP. Maybe they were in the
middle of their meal when the kid started to cry. It's not an option
to leave at that point. However, I do agree with you that one of them
could have taken it outside to comfort it if the raquet was that bad.
The OP didn't say they lingered over coffee and dessert, so they got
out as soon as possible and I'm sure they had "attentive" service to
help them be on their way. However, it seems the OP was the only
patron bothered, not even his wife wanted to leave. I'm sure he'll be
pounding this subject to death for a long, long time.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:27:02 GMT, 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." Which one are you?
>
>
> Peter, they were there BEFORE the whining OP.

Wrong. And I quote:

After
waiting 20 minutes past our scheduled reservation, we
were seated at a quiet booth that was available the
entire time. Soon (8:15pm)a family of 4 with a tired 2
year old crying to go home was seated behind us.

nancy.

On 6 Jul 2005 19:41:59 -0700, Mad Dan wrote:

>
>
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> > On Wed 06 Jul 2005 05:31:50p, Julia Altshuler wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
>
> >
> > 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!
>
>
> That was in the old days - when you USED TO smoke, right? Which you
> don't any more, right?
>
He was probably sitting on the non-smoking side... that's why it's
"heaven" - you don't have to smell second hand smoke.

Dave Smith wrote:

> Damsel wrote:
>
>
>>>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.
>>
>>You only have to follow through once or twice with a lot of kids. Once
>>they know that they are absolutely not going to get away with it, they lose
>>their power over the adults in their lives, and they settle down, pronto
>>when the car is mentioned.
>
>
> That's true, but I don't want to be the one who has to put up with it the first few
> times that they have to resort to it. I have been in the position of listening to
> people warn their kids repeatedly that they just had their last warning more times
> that I care to count.
>
>
We used the one warning method and quite often it was just a look, not
verbal. Our kids knew better than to test whether we would follow
through or not. They have all been good eaters and enjoyed going out to
restaurants. The last one of them would have wanted was to be removed
from the restaurant while their sibs enjoyed their meals.

sf wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 23:09:48 -0500, jmcquown wrote:
>
>
>> I also have found a
>> lot of parents are so used to tantrums and screaming fits from their kids
>> they simply tune them out.
>
>
> I was under the impression it was an INFANT. Infants cry (and not
> very loudly) - that's the nature of the beast. If mom or dad had

You should have heard DD. For the first 4 months of here life she cried
non-stop until she would actually pass out. It was loud and grating on
the nerves!

> already shoved a pacifier or bottle in it's mouth, then maybe the
> problem was at the other end. In any case, the OP had his chance to
> leave but didn't - even though getting up and leaving would have been
> a clearer statement of dissatisfaction than stiffing the waiter.

What I don't understand is the owner offered to reseat the OP in another
part of the restaurant yet he refused and the OP refused compensation.
Instead he took out his frustations on the waiter. We've only heard the
OP's version; I wonder what the restaurant's version is.
>
> I have no sympathy for him.

In article .com>,
gjgee > wrote:
><I was too upset to accept any
>compensation offered>
>
>What did they offer? Why would you not accept compensation?
>
><but still shocked that on my $86
>tab they charged me a $10 corkage fee on my bottle of
>wine.>
>
>Is the corkage fee posted on the menu or elsewhere? If so, they are
>fully in line to charge you for that.
>
><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 feel this is wrong, VERY wrong. As A.C. noted, you only hurt the
>waiter, whom you commended for good service. That makes no sense. You
>get good service, you tip. How is this supposed to affect the owner?
>
>Sounds like you were just trying to make an unfortunate situation worse
>by being difficult. The owner has no control over his guests and if he
>offered to move you to a different table, away from the crying child,
>why didn't you just move and get on with your romantic dinner?
>
><While I think I should have walked out, my wife was
>looking forward too much to her Duck breast with a
>Lobster Tail>
>
>What did your wife think?
>

Of course, I have to wonder why the owner could move the couple who
preferred to be seated in the quieter part of the restaurant but
couldn't have put the family with the crying child in the less-quiet
part of the restaurant to begin with. The op said the child came in
crying and wanting to leave, so why start them in the quieter section?

(But, it still wasn't the waiter's fault.)

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On 6 Jul 2005 19:41:59 -0700, Mad Dan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> > On Wed 06 Jul 2005 05:31:50p, Julia Altshuler wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > 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!
>>
>>
>> That was in the old days - when you USED TO smoke, right? Which you
>> don't any more, right?
>>
> He was probably sitting on the non-smoking side... that's why it's
> "heaven" - you don't have to smell second hand smoke.

No such thing in California all indoor public venues are non Smoking.
Restaurants, Bars, sporting events theaters etc..

"Nancy Young" > wrote in message
...

<Snip>


> waiting 20 minutes past our scheduled reservation, we
> were seated at a quiet booth that was available the
> entire time. Soon (8:15pm)a family of 4 with a tired 2
> year old crying to go home was seated behind us.
>
> nancy.

The tip off to the ire and anger for the evening the The age old issue - in
the damn booth was empty all the time why in the hell did I have to wait 20
minutes to be seated in an empty booth?

IMHO that was the beginning of the end of the evening - the rest was the
proverbial icing on the cake.

Dimitri

On Wed 06 Jul 2005 07:41:59p, Mad Dan wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
>
> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> On Wed 06 Jul 2005 05:31:50p, Julia Altshuler wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>
>
>>
>> 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!
>
>
> That was in the old days - when you USED TO smoke, right? Which you
> don't any more, right?

Yes, actually you're right. I quit smoking within the past year, after
several atempts.

--
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): 0527-1, 07/07/2005
Tested on: 7/7/2005 10:51:49 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On Thu 07 Jul 2005 09:39:11a, sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 6 Jul 2005 19:41:59 -0700, Mad Dan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>> > On Wed 06 Jul 2005 05:31:50p, Julia Altshuler wrote in
>> > rec.food.cooking:
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > 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!
>>
>>
>> That was in the old days - when you USED TO smoke, right? Which you
>> don't any more, right?
>>
> He was probably sitting on the non-smoking side... that's why it's
> "heaven" - you don't have to smell second hand smoke.

No, back then I was a smoker.

--
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): 0527-1, 07/07/2005
Tested on: 7/7/2005 10:52:18 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On Thu 07 Jul 2005 10:15:12a, Dimitri wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 6 Jul 2005 19:41:59 -0700, Mad Dan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>>> > On Wed 06 Jul 2005 05:31:50p, Julia Altshuler wrote in
>>> > rec.food.cooking:
>>> >
>>>
>>> >
>>> > 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!
>>>
>>>
>>> That was in the old days - when you USED TO smoke, right? Which you
>>> don't any more, right?
>>>
>> He was probably sitting on the non-smoking side... that's why it's
>> "heaven" - you don't have to smell second hand smoke.
>
> No such thing in California all indoor public venues are non Smoking.
> Restaurants, Bars, sporting events theaters etc..

It's voted in or out by cities here in AZ. I believe most are non-smoking.

--
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): 0527-1, 07/07/2005
Tested on: 7/7/2005 10:53:05 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
...


>> That was in the old days - when you USED TO smoke, right? Which you
>> don't any more, right?
>
> Yes, actually you're right. I quit smoking within the past year, after
> several atempts.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright *¿*

Try silkquit.org and down load the meter . It's a nice reinforcement.

Dimitri

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:06:06 -0400, ~patches~ wrote:

> You should have heard DD. For the first 4 months of here life she cried
> non-stop until she would actually pass out. It was loud and grating on
> the nerves!

Sounds like she had colic! It typically starts at 2 - 4 weeks and
ends around 4 months... did you take her on car rides to get her to
sleep?

On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 18:15:33 -0400, ~patches~ wrote:

> 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!

The casino's are fostering future gamblers so they'll never run out of
business.

On Thu 07 Jul 2005 11:13:30a, Dimitri wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>> That was in the old days - when you USED TO smoke, right? Which you
>>> don't any more, right?
>>
>> Yes, actually you're right. I quit smoking within the past year, after
>> several atempts.
>>
>> --
>> Wayne Boatwright *¿*
>
> Try silkquit.org and down load the meter . It's a nice reinforcement.
>
> Dimitri

Thanks, Dimitri. Someone else suggested that a while back and I did
download the meter and have been using it. It is nice reinforcement.

--
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): 0527-1, 07/07/2005
Tested on: 7/7/2005 11:20:45 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 17:15:12 GMT, Dimitri wrote:

>
> No such thing in California all indoor public venues are non Smoking.
> Restaurants, Bars, sporting events theaters etc..

He didn't mention the year, just the situation. Isn't the entire
country going no smoking in public areas now?

You're right... I reread it For some reason I thought the kid was a
baby. Those parents needed their heads examined. If any meal called
for a trip to McDonald's, that one did.

`````````````````


On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 12:38:40 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:

>
> "sf" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 22:27:02 GMT, 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." Which one are you?
> >
> >
> > Peter, they were there BEFORE the whining OP.
>
> Wrong. And I quote:
>
> After
> waiting 20 minutes past our scheduled reservation, we
> were seated at a quiet booth that was available the
> entire time. Soon (8:15pm)a family of 4 with a tired 2
> year old crying to go home was seated behind us.
>
> nancy.
>

sf wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> I really like that practice. It's a win-win situation. The customer
> can bring a wine of choice that hasn't been marked up 3-6 times and
> the restaurant doesn't have to deal with drunken customers.

How does drinking ones own booze prevent drunkeness?!?!?
If the booze costs less I'd think folks would typically drink more. DUH
And you EXAGGERATE, wine/liquor is not marked up 3-6 times... actually
it's marked up about 100%, about the same as food... next you'll whine
about why you can't bring your own steak... oops, I mean tube steak.

And restaurants will lose money from loss of alchol sales, which will
cause food prices to increase, causing those who come to eat more
rather than drink more to pay more in order to subsidize the BYOWers.

There's no free lunch.

Yours is a lose-lose situation.

You don't want to pay bar prices do your boozing at home and eat out at
the Golden Arches, it's what you do anyway... but I'll bet bar prices
are just fine when you hook some man to buy.

Sheldon

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
...



> Thanks, Dimitri. Someone else suggested that a while back and I did
> download the meter and have been using it. It is nice reinforcement.
>
> --
> Wayne Boatwright *¿*
> ____________________________________________
>
> Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
> Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974

Yep.

Dimitri

Four years, two months, 22 hours, 23 minutes and 21 seconds. 53,302 cigarettes
not smoked, saving $9,994.25. Life saved: 26 weeks, 3 days, 1 hour, 50 minutes.

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "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?

Why that's easy... Nancreep is the baby.

Sheldon

On Thu 07 Jul 2005 11:30:42a, Dimitri wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>
>> Thanks, Dimitri. Someone else suggested that a while back and I did
>> download the meter and have been using it. It is nice reinforcement.
>>
>> --
>> Wayne Boatwright *¿*
>> ____________________________________________
>>
>> Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day.
>> Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974
>
> Yep.
>
> Dimitri
>
> Four years, two months, 22 hours, 23 minutes and 21 seconds. 53,302
> cigarettes not smoked, saving $9,994.25. Life saved: 26 weeks, 3 days, 1
> hour, 50 minutes.

CONGRATS!

--
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): 0527-1, 07/07/2005
Tested on: 7/7/2005 11:36:33 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Sheldon wrote:
> [snip]
> And restaurants will lose money from loss of alchol sales, which will
> cause food prices to increase, causing those who come to eat more
> rather than drink more to pay more in order to subsidize the BYOWers.
>
> There's no free lunch.
>
> Yours is a lose-lose situation.
> [snip]

No, your lack of experience is showing here. There are wine lovers who
are not great cooks. They will find a wine they like from a small
bottling not widely sold to restaurants and they will want to share it
with friends. They will pick a restaurant that serves food compatible
with the wine. The restaurant will serve it and collect a corkage fee.
If it goes well, the customers will return. Everybody benefits.
Repeat with many variations, and you have what has been common
experience in California (with its many boutique wineries) for decades.
Better restaurants know that welcoming the practice increases both
their customers' pleasure and their business. Low end restaurants (and
regions of the country where wine is not so popular) don't know
anything about it. -aem

Nancy Young wrote:

> Around here many towns have limited the number of liquor liscences.
> This is because they don't want booze sold on every corner, even in
> restaurants. Even if a restaurant qualifies for a license doesn't mean
> there are any available. They have to wait until someone else goes out
> of business. And, no, they are not cheap, last I heard.


Yup, this has become a "quality of life" issue here in Chicawgo. When Mayor
Daley II got into power in 1989 one of his goals was to put the kibbosh on
the large number of likker licenses:

http://www.chicagomag.com/stories/0703liquor.htm


The Dry Season
By Steve Rhodes

"Let's face it: Chicago is no longer a shot-and-a-beer town. The rep
lingers, but reality has moved on, sort of like the notion of the Chicago
Bears as skull-cracking Monsters of the Midway. The city of neighborhoods
was once the city of neighborhood taverns. No more. There are just over half
as many taverns in the city today (1,479) as there were a decade ago
(2,728).

This isn't just a reflection of the changing attitudes toward drinking in
America, though that is certainly a part of it. It is more squarely the
result of the aggressive liquor policy of Mayor Richard M. Daley, with an
assist from numerous aldermen. In one respect, the mayor has cleaned up the
town, creating stringent new liquor licensing procedures that keep out the
riffraff, including organized crime, more effectively than in the past. His
administration has shut down scores of bad bars and troublesome taverns with
histories of selling drugs, serving minors, or disturbing the neighbors

In another respect, though, the clampdown on Chicago's drinking life has
eroded one of the city's special charms, a development that troubles Ray
Oldenburg, a retired sociologist whose widely praised 1989 book The Great
Good Place celebrated neighborhood bars, coffee shops, bookstores, and
salons as being at the heart of communities. "I guess the city is being
rendered safe for puritans," he says. In Chicago, bars that are purely
places to drink are a diminishing breed; in at least some parts of the city,
it's nearly impossible to get a liquor license if you don't serve food. "If
someone came in here wanting to get a tavern license, I'd pretty much let
them know right up front that the answer is no," says North Side alderman Vi
Daley (43rd). "We haven't done a tavern license in a long time."

Some 37 of the city's 50 wards are covered at least in part by moratoriums
prohibiting new liquor licenses-except for restaurants. "That's why there
are so many Bar Louies," complains one of the city's prominent
restaurateurs.

It's not that restaurants have it easy, either. Even upscale restaurants
backed by well-known owners and chefs routinely open without their liquor
licenses, due to the arduous application process, which requires, among
other things, that every investor-and investor's spouse-be fingerprinted for
a police background check. "Every opening is without a license," the
prominent restaurateur says. "When Mia Francesca opened on Bryn Mawr, the
license was three weeks late. There were seven [other Francesca restaurants]
already. C'mon!"

While many cities have instituted more restrictive liquor policies in recent
years, it's particularly striking to see it happen in Chicago. Yes, the
temperance movement had deep roots here. But if ever there was a city whose
history has been tied up with booze, this is it. "Free-flowing alcohol is
what cemented the original relationships between fur trappers, settlers,
soldiers, and local Indians in the 1600s and 1700s," Robert G. Spinney wrote
in his history, City of Big Shoulders (2000). In 1855, Mayor Levi Boone, of
the Know-Nothing Party, touched off the Lager Beer Riot when he banned
alcohol sales on Sundays. Al Capone built his empire as a bootlegger. In
1931, Anton Cermak was elected in part on a pledge to end Prohibition; the
mayor was known as the "wettest man in Chicago." And let's not forget that
when Alderman "Paddy" Bauler famously declared Chicago was not ready for
reform, he worked out of a saloon that doubled as his ward office. The
"wets" and "drys" have always competed for power in Chicago.

Daley isn't dry. But though he's not a teetotaler, he certainly is not wet.

About a year ago, Jerry Roper, the president and chief executive of the
Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce, acting on business owners' rising
frustration with the city's liquor policy and its stranglehold on the
hospitality industry, arranged a meeting with Daley's liquor czar, Winston
Mardis. Roper had a single question: Why has it become so hard to get a
liquor license in Chicago?

* * *

The short answer: Because that's the way Daley wants it. Even during the
1989 special primary, before he was first elected mayor, Daley thought
Chicago was awash in neighborhood nuisances, and he consulted with experts
about how to gain greater control over liquor licensing in the city. "A bad
liquor establishment can tear the fabric of a neighborhood and send it into
a decline," he would later declare. (Daley did not comment for this story.)

By state law, the mayor is the city's liquor commissioner. But in practical
terms, the job's daily decision making falls to the director of the Mayor's
License Commission and Local Liquor Control Commission. After he became
mayor, Daley appointed a little-known bureaucrat named Winston Mardis to
that job. His ability to implement the mayor's vision is the (not so secret)
key to his success. "If he didn't do the mayor's bidding, he wouldn't have
lasted," says former Far Southeast Side alderman John Buchanan (10th), who
was often at odds with Daley and Mardis.

[...]

Daley's liquor policy is clearly informed by his vision of the city as an
orderly, clean, family-friendly place. In his first year in office, he set
about reworking the city's liquor ordinance, making it tougher to get a
license, and giving residents a say in allowing new liquor establishments in
their neighborhoods.

[...]

Over the years, the Daley administration has tried a variety of measures to
crack down on liquor establishments, including an aggressive sting program
involving undercover minors. In 1993, Daley said the city had "far too many
liquor licenses" and called for a freeze on new licenses. It's hard to know
if the mayor was serious or just keeping the pressure on. No new bars or
restaurants that serve alcohol at all? It's hard to imagine a robust Chicago
under those conditions.

"We are not looking to systematically reduce the number of licenses in
Chicago," Mardis says. "Absolutely not." And in fact, while the number of
tavern and liquor store licenses has dropped dramatically in the past
decade, the number of incidental licenses-for restaurants and other
establishments that do not serve primarily liquor-has risen slightly (1,610
to 1,881).

[...]

--
Best
Greg

MOMPEAGRAM wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
<snip??>

m curious as too your comments.
>>
>
>
> I'm not one for putting up with this kind of treatment. As soon as the
> owner made the rude comment I would have been outa there.
>
> Helen
>
>


what rude comment?

--

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

On 7 Jul 2005 11:28:08 -0700, Sheldon wrote:

>
>
> sf wrote:
> > Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I really like that practice. It's a win-win situation. The customer
> > can bring a wine of choice that hasn't been marked up 3-6 times and
> > the restaurant doesn't have to deal with drunken customers.
>
> How does drinking ones own booze prevent drunkeness?!?!?

For starters they won't bring in the entire case of booze.

> If the booze costs less I'd think folks would typically drink more. DUH
> And you EXAGGERATE, wine/liquor is not marked up 3-6 times... actually
> it's marked up about 100%, about the same as food...

100%? You mean 2x retail??? What dream world do you live in? I can
think of only 1 restaurant that charges 1.5 - 2 times retail.

> next you'll whine
> about why you can't bring your own steak... oops, I mean tube steak.
>
> And restaurants will lose money from loss of alchol sales, which will
> cause food prices to increase, causing those who come to eat more
> rather than drink more to pay more in order to subsidize the BYOWers.
>
> There's no free lunch.
>
> Yours is a lose-lose situation.
>
> You don't want to pay bar prices do your boozing at home and eat out at
> the Golden Arches, it's what you do anyway... but I'll bet bar prices
> are just fine when you hook some man to buy.
>
Yeah, yeah, yeah.