On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:23:01 -0400, ~patches~ wrote:

> He had a voice that you could help hearing, not quite yelling
> but certainly not quiet.

The combination of men and cell phones is totally annoying. They
always raise their voice so everyone in the area can hear how
important they *think* they are!

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:30:42 GMT, Dimitri wrote:
>
> 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.
>
That must be what Steve Cramer used! I wondered how he kept track of
all those stastics.

sf wrote:

> The combination of men and cell phones is totally annoying. They
> always raise their voice so everyone in the area can hear how
> important they *think* they are!


Wimmin are WORSE though, they are ALWAYS yakkin'...ALWAYS cluelessly in
peoples' way because they are yakkin', and wimmin are even WORSE drivers
than they already are when they are yakkin' on the mobile whilst driving...

I notice lotsa queer guys are "Chatty Cathys" too on their mobiles...

Airheads the lot of 'em...

Taxi drivers who are constantly yakking on the cell back to Rawilpindi or
Damascus or Kano or wherever are also a pain in by big fat butt - I won't
tip a taxi driver who is constantly on the phone...

--
Best
Greg

In article >,
sf > wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:23:01 -0400, ~patches~ wrote:
>
> > He had a voice that you could help hearing, not quite yelling
> > but certainly not quiet.
>
> The combination of men and cell phones is totally annoying. They
> always raise their voice so everyone in the area can hear how
> important they *think* they are!

Don't be too hard on the men. I heard a woman's cell phone go off
loudly in the library, just yesterday, and rather than turn it off, she
got on the phone and started a conversation.

Regards,
Ranee

Remove do not & spam to e-mail me.

"She seeks wool and flax, and works with willing hands." Prov 31:13

http://arabianknits.blogspot.com/
http://talesfromthekitchen.blogspot.com/

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 18:30:42 GMT, Dimitri wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
> That must be what Steve Cramer used! I wondered how he kept track of
> all those stastics.

Yep that's it - its a meter that calculates every second.

Four years, two months, 23 hours, 29 minutes and 41 seconds. 53304 cigarettes
not smoked, saving $9,994.55. Life saved: 26 weeks, 3 days, 2 hours, 0 minutes.

On 2005-07-07, ~patches~ > wrote:

> they were taught from a very young age that certain
> behaviours are not appropriate in public.

Sadly, that outlook is all too rare, these days. The more common view
seems to be children should be allowed to express themselves without
psyche damaging restrictions. This, of course, is complete hogwash.
Kudos to you for teaching your kids to be socially responsible.

nb

On 2005-07-07, ~patches~ > wrote:

> Frankly, cellphones bother me more than crying babies.

I wouldn't say cell phone bother me more, but they certainly are royal
pain. I'd like to see more public venues ...theatres, restaurants,
libraries, etc... completely ban cell phones, beepers, etc, of any
type. If you're really annoyed by cellphones, you might consider
buying a personal cell phone jammer. Perfect for keeping the social
retards at bay:

http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Personal.htm

nb

Sheldon wrote:

>
> > 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?!?!?

The way the law is here, the waiter has to open the wine, and they can't serve drunks, even if they
did bring their own wine. If they only have a glass or two they can re-cork the bottle and take it
home instead of feeling compelled to finish the bottle they bought from the restaurant.


> 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.

The difference being that food involves work and there is the risk of spoilage. With wine, all they
need is a place to store it, refrigerated for most whites (or an ice bucket), and the minimal amount
of work it takes to fetch the bottle and open it.

> 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.

They don't loose anything but not selling the wine. They just don't make money on what wine they may
otherwise have sold. By your rationale, they should not serve non drinkers because they don't make
any money off them on booze sales. And as a non drinking friend pointed out to me, going out for
dinner is a lot cheaper when you don't have wine.

If not selling wine to customers means they have to raise prices, the same might be said for
customers who do not order appetizers or desserts.

I don't know how restaurateurs ever came up with the practice of marking up wine at least 100%, but it
is grossly unfair to customers. It may be a reasonable profit for them to mark up a $7 to $14 .... $7
to open a bottle and provide a few glasses to someone who is going to be there an hour or two. But
when it is a $30 of wine they are going to make 4 times as much, the only consideration being a
percentage profit.

Maybe restaurants have not learned the lesson of loss leader sales so common in grocery stores. When
they gouge people with excessive mark-up in wines they lose customers, so they don't make anything off
them on wine or food. If they kept their wine prices low and sell good food, they will attract more
customers and sell more meals. As long as they see wine sales as a way to gouge their customers, the
customers will find ways to try to save.

sf wrote:

> > He had a voice that you could help hearing, not quite yelling
> > but certainly not quiet.
>
> The combination of men and cell phones is totally annoying. They
> always raise their voice so everyone in the area can hear how
> important they *think* they are!

Maybe it's because what they are talking about is important. I have
to agree with you that men with cell phones in restaurants and coffee
shops are louder, and the conversations I have overheard were
business. Women are not quite as loud, but they do a lot more cell
phone talking. So I don't know what is worse, the loud business
stuff or the more frequent idle chatter. Either way, it has no
business in either. I am still looking for some sort of electronic
device to zap cell phone signals so that I can enjoy myself in a cell
free environment.

MOMPEAGRAM wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Was I wrong or did I miss something???
> >
> > "The Nest" is a 4 star restaurant nestled in the
> > romantic Saddleback Inn, Lake Arrowhead, CA. 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. After
> > 10 minutes of non-stop crying, we spoke with a
> > waitress about the disturbance caused by the child.
> > The ownercame 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. Since the romance for the evening was ruined,
> > we decided to move. I was too upset to accept any
> > compensation offered, but still shocked that on my $86
> > tab they charged me a $10 corkage fee on my bottle of
> > wine. The food and service is worthy of 5 stars, but
> > owner is a horrible manager and will sacrifice your
> > romantic evening at the expense of a crying child.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > While I think I should have walked out, my wife was
> > looking forward too much to her Duck breast with a
> > Lobster Tail. By that point McDonalds was good enough
> > for me.
> >
> > I am 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

Not me. I never would have sat down. Had I been marched through a
crowded restaurant to what is obviously the only empty table and had I
seen any rug rat within 50 feet along the way I'd have said um, no
thanks, later gator, adios mf, I'm outa here... Wouldn't matter what
price range the joint, I've walked out of fancy restaurants simply
because they let kids in (if management let them in in the first place
ain't no remedy), and I've walked out fast food places when they were
the only place to eat within 20 miles in either direction along the
interstate... march out, hop into the car, and hit the drive-thru
window... I'd much rather talk to the clown than gack from screaming
and smell their poop... actually the smelly poopy pants bothers me more
than the howling.. I'm sure the parents thinks their kids crap smells
like Evening in Paris... more like a French woman's crotch.

But it's gotta be 20 years now since I've frequented any fast food
joint. I either eat at a pricy place without kids or I eat home. When
traveling I bring food from home in a cooler... on longer trips I
refill the cooler by stopping at stupidmarkets. No one should ever eat
at any restaurant while on a motor trip (pizza is ok, fresh out of the
oven it's sterile), especially on a several day drive... even a mild
case of food poisoning will ruin an entire vacation. Carry an ice
chest, a portable grill, and stop to peruse the menu at stupidmarkets.
Breakfast is the most dangerous meal when on the road, stick to
muffins, toasty flakies, fresh fruit from markets, no greezy spoon
saw-seege n' eggs... don't really want to eat heavy when on the road
day after day anyway (constant constipation is as bad as the runs).
Save the heaviest meal for dinner, lettuce and tomato salad, perhaps a
grilled steak with aluminum pouch sliced spuds n' onyuns, a nice cheap
bottle of dago red from the local package store, even a quart of ice
cream... never yet stayed at a motor lodge wouldn't allow a small grill
off to the side on their lawn... many even supply a grill and picnic
tables... many interstates have beautiful roadside rest stops where you
can dine while viewing spectacular scenery, with fabulous grilling
facilities... can even have a hot shower (driving around Lake Superior
a few roadside reststops from noon till sundown actually supplied
already glowing coals by the shovelful... I think the park rangers
tending the site didn't want idiots building fires in the woods
instead). Only thing I strongly recommend is make certain to bring bug
spray. Hey, blackflies and 'skeeters ain't any kind of annoyance
compared to some pinhead's screaming POOP-STINKING brat... makes me
wanna empty a can of Deep Woods Formula up their parent's poop chutes.

aem wrote:
> 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.

No, your fast food mentality is showing.

Sheldon

sf wrote:
> 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.

Many years ago, I believe it was David Rosengarten or someone with a
name like that, who talked about restaurant wines by the glass on his
program on Food TV. I remember that he said that the first glass out
of a bottle pays for the whole bottle. The rest is pure profit.
There are five glasses of wine per bottle.

While the profits on wine and drinks may be high, food is served at
near cost. Someone who is knowledgeable on this subject, may be able
to enlighten us, please.
>

Sheldon wrote:

>
> Not me. I never would have sat down. Had I been marched through a
> crowded restaurant to what is obviously the only empty table and had I
> seen any rug rat within 50 feet along the way I'd have said um, no
> thanks, later gator, adios mf, I'm outa here...

I am with you there. I would do the same if there was a large group nearby,
especially if they are women.

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.

I think the post said the child was about 2 and cranky/tired.

Jill

If mom or dad had
> 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.
>
> I have no sympathy for him.

Dave Smith wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> >
> > > 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?!?!?
>
> The way the law is here, the waiter has to open the wine, and they can't serve drunks, even if they
> did bring their own wine. If they only have a glass or two they can re-cork

Yeah, right.. like someone is really going to bring their own pricey
vino, pay corkage yet, and for only a glass or two... yet another one
with fast food fantasy mentality. Go back to reading your Little
Golden Books.

Methinks yoose all confused... it's when folks pay big bucks for wine
from fancy joints and after guzzling all night they wanna take the few
partly filled bottles home... that's illegal... but some
municipalities,(the redneck asshole ones) are beginning to allow the
moronic practice, so the imbeciles can chug-a-lug the rest while
barreling down the interstate in their rattle trap pick ups and toss
the empties out the window.

Sheldon

Dimitri wrote:
> "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

Well.... I don't know the restaurant but I have been a server. Perhaps the
server had just been seated two tables and would have provided very poor
service if there wasn't a lag between the other tables being seated.
Generally tables are seated on a rotation basis so no one server gets
slammed at one time while another stands idle. Conversely, there's always
the option of the server going in the back and saying, "I'm in the weeds!
Anyone want to pick up table 12?" and someone always does (more tips).

Jill

Sorry! You were wrong not to tip the waiter. If I were you I would
go back to the restaurant, not to dine but to find the waiter and
apologize and compensate him. You will feel good about yourself after
you have done this.
Good luck,
Ellie

sf wrote:

> 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?

Yep, she did have colic and nothing would settle her. Her ped thought
she might have a twisted bowel so we went through all that testing. At
age 4 months, it stopped almost to the day. She was very sickly looking
then all of a sudden discovered food and things were good. She's now
married and looking at starting a family. Boy, does she love food! Her
and her DH go all over to visit fine dining establishments and she is an
excellent cook. They recently flew to Nova Scotia just to eat at a
restaurant they saw on foodtv! She is now lactose intolerant but other
than that, she really enjoys life especially cooking! She got me hooked
on foodtv, bad girl ;

sf wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:23:01 -0400, ~patches~ wrote:
>
>
>> He had a voice that you could help hearing, not quite yelling
>> but certainly not quiet.
>
>
> The combination of men and cell phones is totally annoying. They
> always raise their voice so everyone in the area can hear how
> important they *think* they are!
>

Tee, hee. They do do that. OTOH, aside of getting a nice glimpse on
his private life, DH and I enjoyed steak (rare & med. rare), baked
potatoes with sour cream & chives, and a vegetable combination followed
up by a white rum russian for DH and a small glass of zinfindel for me.
Then we decided on vanilla ice cream for dessert with their butter rum
topping. It was still a good night

Gregory Morrow wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
>
>>The combination of men and cell phones is totally annoying. They
>>always raise their voice so everyone in the area can hear how
>>important they *think* they are!
>
>
>
> Wimmin are WORSE though, they are ALWAYS yakkin'...ALWAYS cluelessly in
> peoples' way because they are yakkin', and wimmin are even WORSE drivers
> than they already are when they are yakkin' on the mobile whilst driving...

No they aren't! I tell you my DH can put any women to shame with
yipping on the phone. He just has the good sense not to do it during
meals. We both have cell phones and they are always turned off during
restaurant meals. The house phones are not answered during meal times
either. We want to enjoy our food and not be interrupted.

>
> I notice lotsa queer guys are "Chatty Cathys" too on their mobiles...
>
> Airheads the lot of 'em...
>
> Taxi drivers who are constantly yakking on the cell back to Rawilpindi or
> Damascus or Kano or wherever are also a pain in by big fat butt - I won't
> tip a taxi driver who is constantly on the phone...
>

notbob wrote:

> On 2005-07-07, ~patches~ > wrote:
>
>
>>they were taught from a very young age that certain
>>behaviours are not appropriate in public.
>
>
> Sadly, that outlook is all too rare, these days. The more common view
> seems to be children should be allowed to express themselves without
> psyche damaging restrictions. This, of course, is complete hogwash.
> Kudos to you for teaching your kids to be socially responsible.
>
> nb

Thank you for your kind complement. As far as the psyche damage, I just
don't buy it. BTW, I would have loved to damage one young person's
psyche over the long weekend. Such trash coming out of that mouth! No
respect for herself or others either.

In article >, ~patches~
> wrote:

> 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

Didn't know Duluth had any cute restaurants. Blackwoods Grill, maybe?
--
-Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 7/01/05 Sam I Am!

Dave Smith wrote:

> sf wrote:
>
>
>>> He had a voice that you could help hearing, not quite yelling
>>> but certainly not quiet.
>>
>>The combination of men and cell phones is totally annoying. They
>>always raise their voice so everyone in the area can hear how
>>important they *think* they are!
>
>
> Maybe it's because what they are talking about is important. I have
> to agree with you that men with cell phones in restaurants and coffee
> shops are louder, and the conversations I have overheard were
> business. Women are not quite as loud, but they do a lot more cell
> phone talking. So I don't know what is worse, the loud business
> stuff or the more frequent idle chatter. Either way, it has no
> business in either. I am still looking for some sort of electronic
> device to zap cell phone signals so that I can enjoy myself in a cell
> free environment.
>
>
It depends on the woman. DH and I both have cell phones. I use mine
maybe at most once or twice a month whereas DH uses his two or three
times a week if not more. The most annoying use of cell phones is in
restaurants followed by waiting in a que or the young ones who have the
cell phone surgically attached to their ears.

Sheldon wrote:

> MOMPEAGRAM wrote:
>
> wrote in message
groups.com...
>>
>>>Was I wrong or did I miss something???
>>>
>>>"The Nest" is a 4 star restaurant nestled in the
>>>romantic Saddleback Inn, Lake Arrowhead, CA. 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. After
>>>10 minutes of non-stop crying, we spoke with a
>>>waitress about the disturbance caused by the child.
>>>The ownercame 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. Since the romance for the evening was ruined,
>>>we decided to move. I was too upset to accept any
>>>compensation offered, but still shocked that on my $86
>>>tab they charged me a $10 corkage fee on my bottle of
>>>wine. The food and service is worthy of 5 stars, but
>>>owner is a horrible manager and will sacrifice your
>>>romantic evening at the expense of a crying child.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>While I think I should have walked out, my wife was
>>>looking forward too much to her Duck breast with a
>>>Lobster Tail. By that point McDonalds was good enough
>>>for me.
>>>
>>>I am 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
>
>
> Not me. I never would have sat down. Had I been marched through a
> crowded restaurant to what is obviously the only empty table and had I
> seen any rug rat within 50 feet along the way I'd have said um, no
> thanks, later gator, adios mf, I'm outa here... Wouldn't matter what
> price range the joint, I've walked out of fancy restaurants simply
> because they let kids in (if management let them in in the first place
> ain't no remedy), and I've walked out fast food places when they were
> the only place to eat within 20 miles in either direction along the
> interstate... march out, hop into the car, and hit the drive-thru
> window... I'd much rather talk to the clown than gack from screaming
> and smell their poop... actually the smelly poopy pants bothers me more
> than the howling.. I'm sure the parents thinks their kids crap smells
> like Evening in Paris... more like a French woman's crotch.
>
> But it's gotta be 20 years now since I've frequented any fast food
> joint. I either eat at a pricy place without kids or I eat home. When
> traveling I bring food from home in a cooler... on longer trips I
> refill the cooler by stopping at stupidmarkets. No one should ever eat
> at any restaurant while on a motor trip (pizza is ok, fresh out of the

I agree with you on this one.

> oven it's sterile), especially on a several day drive... even a mild
> case of food poisoning will ruin an entire vacation. Carry an ice
> chest, a portable grill, and stop to peruse the menu at stupidmarkets.
> Breakfast is the most dangerous meal when on the road, stick to
> muffins, toasty flakies, fresh fruit from markets, no greezy spoon
> saw-seege n' eggs... don't really want to eat heavy when on the road
> day after day anyway (constant constipation is as bad as the runs).

Our second trip to Vegas, we ate at a breakfast buffet. NOT GOOD!
Never eat sausage from a breakfast buffet! We spent a good two days of
our trip very close to the toilets and felt lousey to boot.

> Save the heaviest meal for dinner, lettuce and tomato salad, perhaps a
> grilled steak with aluminum pouch sliced spuds n' onyuns, a nice cheap
> bottle of dago red from the local package store, even a quart of ice
> cream... never yet stayed at a motor lodge wouldn't allow a small grill
> off to the side on their lawn... many even supply a grill and picnic
> tables... many interstates have beautiful roadside rest stops where you
> can dine while viewing spectacular scenery, with fabulous grilling
> facilities... can even have a hot shower (driving around Lake Superior
> a few roadside reststops from noon till sundown actually supplied
> already glowing coals by the shovelful... I think the park rangers
> tending the site didn't want idiots building fires in the woods
> instead). Only thing I strongly recommend is make certain to bring bug
> spray. Hey, blackflies and 'skeeters ain't any kind of annoyance

I'd add sunblock to that recommendation.

> compared to some pinhead's screaming POOP-STINKING brat... makes me
> wanna empty a can of Deep Woods Formula up their parent's poop chutes.
>

On Thu 07 Jul 2005 12:11:59p, sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:23:01 -0400, ~patches~ wrote:
>
>> He had a voice that you could help hearing, not quite yelling but
>> certainly not quiet.
>
> The combination of men and cell phones is totally annoying. They
> always raise their voice so everyone in the area can hear how
> important they *think* they are!

IMHO, women are just as bad and their voices are just as irritating. Pitch
makes up for volume in many cases.

Another place I resent cell phone use is in supermarkets where many
shoppers stay online the entire time they're shopping. If they'd keep
moving and stay out of everyone else's way it wouldn't be quite so bad, but
many often just come to an abrupt stop and continue talking. Makes me
wonder if they ever heard of a shopping list. What's even worse is a
parent carrying on a continuous cell phone conversation with kids in tow.
They exert absolutely no control over them at all.

It seems more common, in any venue, with people whose generation never knew
the absence of cell phone technology and their propensity for talking 24/7.
It's just as bad as those with mp3 players and the like, permamently
attached to their heads. They either can't or won't acknowledge an "excuse
me" and are oblivious to their surroundingss to the extent that they think
they're the only ones who exist.

--
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 3:30:46 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Melba's Jammin' wrote:

> In article >, ~patches~
> > wrote:
>
>
>>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
>
>
> Didn't know Duluth had any cute restaurants. Blackwoods Grill, maybe?

Sorry, I can't remember the name only the bear. It really was a nice
little place. IIRC, the decor was yellow walls but the bear was the best!

"Wayne Boatwright" > wrote in message > Another place I
resent cell phone use is in supermarkets where many
> shoppers stay online the entire time they're shopping. If they'd keep
> moving and stay out of everyone else's way it wouldn't be quite so bad, but
> many often just come to an abrupt stop and continue talking. Makes me
> wonder if they ever heard of a shopping list.

<snip>
> Wayne Boatwright *¿*

A few years ago I stopped off at Costco on the way home. The boss was sick and
I figured while I was there (I really hate to go any more) I was walking down
the Health and Beauty Aisle on the cell phone talking to home. I said " how are
you on Shampoo? What kind, Conditioner? What kind? What size? - about then a
very very attractive woman passed me by. Like the saying goes "our eyes meet"
This went on for one more aisle. By the third aisle I was off the phone when we
passed one more time. She in one direction me in the other. Our eyes meet one
more time, we smiled at each other when she said " where do I get one like
you?".

I almost asked her if she made enough for both of us and of course though twice
about it and smiled laughed with her and told her they broke the mold with me.

lol


Dimitri.

~patches~ wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> sf wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> He had a voice that you could help hearing, not quite yelling
>>>> but certainly not quiet.
>>>
>>> The combination of men and cell phones is totally annoying. They
>>> always raise their voice so everyone in the area can hear how
>>> important they *think* they are!
>>
>>
>> Maybe it's because what they are talking about is important. I have
>> to agree with you that men with cell phones in restaurants and coffee
>> shops are louder, and the conversations I have overheard were
>> business. Women are not quite as loud, but they do a lot more cell
>> phone talking. So I don't know what is worse, the loud business
>> stuff or the more frequent idle chatter. Either way, it has no
>> business in either. I am still looking for some sort of electronic
>> device to zap cell phone signals so that I can enjoy myself in a cell
>> free environment.
>>
>>
> It depends on the woman. DH and I both have cell phones. I use mine
> maybe at most once or twice a month whereas DH uses his two or three
> times a week if not more. The most annoying use of cell phones is in
> restaurants followed by waiting in a que or the young ones who have
> the cell phone surgically attached to their ears.

I only use my cell phone when I'm out of town. I carry it with me in case
my car breaks down but (knock on wood) I haven't needed it in such
situations. If I can't figure out what to buy at the grocery store (for
example) without calling someone on a cell phone (I've heard that excuse)
then I'm a moron who shouldn't leave the house.

Oh, and before cell phones shrunk, the MEN at the restaurants, carrying
these huge field-size walkie-talkie units with them would make a point of
letting everyone know they had a MOBILE phone and were so important they had
to have one. It was apparently a sign of prestige which I didn't understand
at all. Business or not, turn the thing off and enjoy your meal! The
client will wait. They did before you had your mobile phone; they will
again.

Jill

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Thu 07 Jul 2005 12:11:59p, sf wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 12:23:01 -0400, ~patches~ wrote:
>>
>>> He had a voice that you could help hearing, not quite yelling but
>>> certainly not quiet.
>>
>> The combination of men and cell phones is totally annoying. They
>> always raise their voice so everyone in the area can hear how
>> important they *think* they are!
>
> IMHO, women are just as bad and their voices are just as irritating.
> Pitch makes up for volume in many cases.
>
> Another place I resent cell phone use is in supermarkets where many
> shoppers stay online the entire time they're shopping. If they'd keep
> moving and stay out of everyone else's way it wouldn't be quite so
> bad, but many often just come to an abrupt stop and continue talking.
> Makes me wonder if they ever heard of a shopping list. What's even
> worse is a parent carrying on a continuous cell phone conversation
> with kids in tow. They exert absolutely no control over them at all.
>
Hear hear! I have often heard the excuse of cell phones in a grocery store
"I wasn't sure what to buy". So get the hell out of the grocery store and
let the person you are asking do the shopping!

Jill

I think you handled it commendably.

Dan

Sheldon wrote:

> Not me. I never would have sat down. Had I been marched through a
> crowded restaurant to what is obviously the only empty table and had I
> seen any rug rat within 50 feet along the way I'd have said um, no
> thanks, later gator, adios mf, I'm outa here... Wouldn't matter what
> price range the joint, I've walked out of fancy restaurants simply
> because they let kids in (if management let them in in the first place
> ain't no remedy), and I've walked out fast food places when they were
> the only place to eat within 20 miles in either direction along the
> interstate... march out, hop into the car, and hit the drive-thru
> window... I'd much rather talk to the clown than gack from screaming
> and smell their poop... actually the smelly poopy pants bothers me more
> than the howling.. I'm sure the parents thinks their kids crap smells
> like Evening in Paris... more like a French woman's crotch.
>
> But it's gotta be 20 years now since I've frequented any fast food
> joint. I either eat at a pricy place without kids or I eat home. When
> traveling I bring food from home in a cooler... on longer trips I
> refill the cooler by stopping at stupidmarkets. No one should ever eat
> at any restaurant while on a motor trip (pizza is ok, fresh out of the
> oven it's sterile), especially on a several day drive... even a mild
> case of food poisoning will ruin an entire vacation. Carry an ice
> chest, a portable grill, and stop to peruse the menu at stupidmarkets.
> Breakfast is the most dangerous meal when on the road, stick to
> muffins, toasty flakies, fresh fruit from markets, no greezy spoon
> saw-seege n' eggs... don't really want to eat heavy when on the road
> day after day anyway (constant constipation is as bad as the runs).
> Save the heaviest meal for dinner, lettuce and tomato salad, perhaps a
> grilled steak with aluminum pouch sliced spuds n' onyuns, a nice cheap
> bottle of dago red from the local package store, even a quart of ice
> cream... never yet stayed at a motor lodge wouldn't allow a small grill
> off to the side on their lawn... many even supply a grill and picnic
> tables... many interstates have beautiful roadside rest stops where you
> can dine while viewing spectacular scenery, with fabulous grilling
> facilities... can even have a hot shower (driving around Lake Superior
> a few roadside reststops from noon till sundown actually supplied
> already glowing coals by the shovelful... I think the park rangers
> tending the site didn't want idiots building fires in the woods
> instead). Only thing I strongly recommend is make certain to bring bug
> spray. Hey, blackflies and 'skeeters ain't any kind of annoyance
> compared to some pinhead's screaming POOP-STINKING brat... makes me
> wanna empty a can of Deep Woods Formula up their parent's poop chutes.
>


Lol...couldn't snip a woid...it's the *perfect* truth...

--
Best
Greg

Margaret Suran wrote:

> > 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.

Around here it is usually closer to 150% or more. The lower priced restaurants selling lower priced wines
seem to have a lower mark up while the more expensive restaurants have slightly better wines but a much
higher mark up.

> Many years ago, I believe it was David Rosengarten or someone with a
> name like that, who talked about restaurant wines by the glass on his
> program on Food TV. I remember that he said that the first glass out
> of a bottle pays for the whole bottle. The rest is pure profit.
> There are five glasses of wine per bottle.

Around here, they usually charge $4.95 - 5.95 per glass for wines that cost $10-12 per bottle, so that
obviously is not the case. They need to sell at least two glasses to break even.

> While the profits on wine and drinks may be high, food is served at
> near cost. Someone who is knowledgeable on this subject, may be able
> to enlighten us, please.

There are a lot of other things that go into the food than the ingredients, most of which restaurants buy
in bulk and at a fraction of the price we pay in grocery stores. They need stoves, pots, pans, dish
washers, and you have to account for the labour.

Sheldon wrote:

> > The way the law is here, the waiter has to open the wine, and they can't serve drunks, even if they
> > did bring their own wine. If they only have a glass or two they can re-cork
>
> Yeah, right.. like someone is really going to bring their own pricey
> vino, pay corkage yet, and for only a glass or two... yet another one
> with fast food fantasy mentality. Go back to reading your Little
> Golden Books.

Where did I mention anything about pricey wine? In Montreal, where they have had BYOWs for years, there
are corner stores where most of the wine is plonk.

> Methinks yoose all confused... it's when folks pay big bucks for wine
> from fancy joints and after guzzling all night they wanna take the few
> partly filled bottles home... that's illegal... but some
> municipalities,(the redneck asshole ones) are beginning to allow the
> moronic practice, so the imbeciles can chug-a-lug the rest while
> barreling down the interstate in their rattle trap pick ups and toss
> the empties out the window.

The deal here is that if you take it with you it has to be re-corked. The legislators seem to feel that
ordering a bottle of wine that you can't take home means that people will consume the whole bottle since
they paid for it, along with the substantial mark up.

http://www.cbs.gov.on.ca/mcbs/english/5Z5JWV.htm

~patches~ wrote:

>
> > Maybe it's because what they are talking about is important. I have
> > to agree with you that men with cell phones in restaurants and coffee
> > shops are louder, and the conversations I have overheard were
> > business. Women are not quite as loud, but they do a lot more cell
> > phone talking. So I don't know what is worse, the loud business
> > stuff or the more frequent idle chatter. Either way, it has no
> > business in either. I am still looking for some sort of electronic
> > device to zap cell phone signals so that I can enjoy myself in a cell
> > free environment.
> >
> >
> It depends on the woman. DH and I both have cell phones. I use mine
> maybe at most once or twice a month whereas DH uses his two or three
> times a week if not more. The most annoying use of cell phones is in
> restaurants followed by waiting in a que or the young ones who have the
> cell phone surgically attached to their ears.

Of course it depends on the woman. Some of them don't use them much at all.
My wife has used mine two or three times to call me to see if I need
anything. But walk through any grocery store or mall, or down a city
sidewalk and I am quite sure that you will see more women than men on their
cell phones. Stand at and intersection and check out the drivers using
cell phones. Once again I can guarantee you there will be more women than
men using them

On Thu, 07 Jul 2005 02:04:07 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>Ill behaved children don't belong in any restaurant. If the child had a
>problem, the parents should have take steps to fix the problem or the owner
>should have asked them to do something. Like leave.

Absolutely agree. Diners should not have to put up with obnoxious
behavior whether it's a child's, a drunk's (and this includes
celebratory groups who get louder as the margarita pitchers get passed
around) or just a loudmouth jerk on a cellphone.

OP was wrong not to tip, IMHO, as it was the manager's duty to ask the
parents with the crying toddler to either quiet the child or leave,
and the server became the target of OP's [financial] revenge.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

On 6 Jul 2005 14:12:33 -0700, "nancree" > wrote:

>The original poster, "akak01000" , was correct when he said:
>
>" McDonalds was good enough
>for me. "

BTW, has anyone ever heard of this goober before The Post That
Launched a Thousand Replies or do we have a troll laughing his *ss off
someplace in Idaho?

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret had been as
old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had been as full as the
waitress's, it would have been a very good dinner."

-- Duncan Hines

To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"

"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote

> BTW, has anyone ever heard of this goober before The Post That
> Launched a Thousand Replies or do we have a troll laughing his *ss off
> someplace in Idaho?

Oh, I am sure it's a troll, still it's interesting to me to see different
people's reactions.

nancy

Dave Smith wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> > > The way the law is here, the waiter has to open the wine, and they can't serve drunks, even if they
> > > did bring their own wine. If they only have a glass or two they can re-cork
> >
> > Yeah, right.. like someone is really going to bring their own pricey
> > vino, pay corkage yet, and for only a glass or two... yet another one
> > with fast food fantasy mentality. Go back to reading your Little
> > Golden Books.
>
> Where did I mention anything about pricey wine? In Montreal, where they have had BYOWs for years, there
> are corner stores where most of the wine is plonk.
>
> > Methinks yoose all confused... it's when folks pay big bucks for wine
> > from fancy joints and after guzzling all night they wanna take the few
> > partly filled bottles home... that's illegal... but some
> > municipalities,(the redneck asshole ones) are beginning to allow the
> > moronic practice, so the imbeciles can chug-a-lug the rest while
> > barreling down the interstate in their rattle trap pick ups and toss
> > the empties out the window.
>
> The deal here is that if you take it with you it has to be re-corked. The legislators seem to feel that
> ordering a bottle of wine that you can't take home means that people will consume the whole bottle since
> they paid for it, along with the substantial mark up.
>
> http://www.cbs.gov.on.ca/mcbs/english/5Z5JWV.htm

Not one point is within the realm of reality for human behaviour... but
it's Canada, for the most part an uncivilized region... I mean like
nowhere else on the planet do more grown men screw livestock and feral
beasts.

Anyone who wants to drink and bypass supervision can and will... got as
much chance of preventing booze being sneaked into a restaurant as
candy bars sneaked into a movie theater. That entire list is purely
about the political, about big brother peeping on yoose personal
consumption habits, has not a whit to do with helping consumers, in
fact just the opposite.

What friggin' planet are yoose people from who think folks bent on
serious drinking can somehow be monitored and controled... and that
folks who will go through the hassle of bringing their own it's because
they will only drinky-poo a widdle glass or two... sheesh, gimme a
****ing break... yoose are delusional, likely never drank stronger than
Kool-Aid. I've traveled extensively throughout Canada, nowhere on the
planet is boozing more a national pastime.

Sheldon

"Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
> BTW, has anyone ever heard of this goober before The Post That
> Launched a Thousand Replies or do we have a troll laughing his *ss off
> someplace in Idaho?

At least it is an on-topic troll and something to have a lively discussion
about. This type of thing does happen in real life except for the cheap SOB
stiffing the wait staff.

Edwin Pawlowski > wrote in message
m...
> "Terry Pulliam Burd" > wrote in message
> > BTW, has anyone ever heard of this goober before
> > The Post That Launched a Thousand Replies or do
> > we have a troll laughing his *ss off someplace in Idaho?
> >
> At least it is an on-topic troll and something to have a
> lively discussion about. This type of thing does happen in
> real life except for the cheap SOB stiffing the wait staff.

It not only happens in Real Life®, so does the stiffing of waitstaff. My
great uncle is a classic example. He doesn't give a rat's tail end
whether that spineless jellyfish of a manager couldn't tell the family
to control the squalling brat... It's all the server's fault. So the
server pays. With him, the buck stops at the server's pocket. His
"reasoning" is that the server will think twice about back-stepping the
next time. Me, I would have told the manager to grow a backbone and then
quickly asked the couple to take the toddler outside until he'd quieted
down... I don't suffer fools nor the product of their union.

The Ranger