large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

Person_one

missbiggles1 wrote: »

You may not but many people find it awkward.

It's also a bit insulting to categorise cheaper restaurants in that way and somewhat ironic given that a poster earlier referred to expensive restaurants in very similar terms.:rotfl:

Despite what you keep implying about my attitude to paying, I'm very generous and would happily pay for the other person to have a proper meal rather have them sitting glaring piously at the rest of us enjoying ourselves.

Well, as we're being insulting!

There's a bit of the weird modern attitude to food and eating creeping in here I think, when you start bringing the concept of piety into it.

seven-day-weekend

Person_one wrote: »

Eating a bit less doesn't mean you don't enjoy eating and drinking!

This thread is getting a bit all or nothing. Split the bill or go to the chippy. Eat 3 full courses or stay at home. Its not how life really works, is it?

No...so that's why you have the person with the empty plate and glass of water (without even the addition of ice and slice).

To me that would be a really miserable meal out, so I can't understand why they have come.

Obviously it does not feel like that to them.

And of course, if that is all they have had, then that is all they should pay for.

Person_one

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

No...so that's why you have the person with the empty plate and glass of water (without even the addition of ice and slice).

To me that would be a really miserable meal out, so I can't understand why they have come.

Obviously it does not feel like that to them.

And of course, if that is all they have had, then that is all they should pay for.

So you're out with friends, people you like and whose company you enjoy. You're laughing, chatting, catching up, sharing jokes and stories, but because say 4 of you have starters and 3 of you don't, you assume that the whole thing suddenly becomes miserable for the 3 without a couple of garlic mushrooms or onion bhajis on their plate?

seven-day-weekend

Person_one wrote: »

So you're out with friends, people you like and whose company you enjoy. You're laughing, chatting, catching up, sharing jokes and stories, but because say 4 of you have starters and 3 of you don't, you assume that the whole thing suddenly becomes miserable for the 3 without a couple of garlic mushrooms or onion bhajis on their plate?

No...if fact I said it obviously wasn't miserable for them. I said I would be miserable if I was the one without the onion bhajis. They obviously do not feel that way.

But they can't enjoy social eating all that much otherwise they WOULD have the bhajis. That's all I meant.

Person_one

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I would be miserable if I was the one without the onion bhajis. .

Sorry, but that's one of the best sentences I've read on here!:rotfl:

seven-day-weekend

Person_one wrote: »

Sorry, but that's one of the best sentences I've read on here!:rotfl:

What's so funny about it?

onlyroz

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Everyone should pay for what they've consumed. I just don't understand why anyone who doesn't enjoy eating and drinking as a social activity would want to go out for a meal at all.

I don't like going to the cinema as a social activity, so I don't go to the cinema and then just watch a quarter of the film, or sit in the foyer while everyone else watches the film. I do something else instead.

Some friends of ours held a murder mystery evening. We were invited, but I can't bare the thought of hiring costumes and then getting 'in character'. So I politely declined. I didn't go and then decide I was only going to join in for ten minutes.

This to me is what someone stoically sitting with an empty plate whilst others are enjoying the food feels like. It probably isn't like that, but that's how it appears to me.

But, as I say, each to their own.

Why are you equating "small appetite" with "not enjoying socialising"? Plenty of people are perfectly happy with choosing one dish while they meet with their friends. If it makes you feel uncomfortable then that is your own problem.

As for your suggestion that people with small appetites should stick to the local Beefeater or Hungry Horse or KFC - perhaps they do enjoy eating small amounts of better quality food?

seven-day-weekend

onlyroz wrote: »

Why are you equating "small appetite" with "not enjoying socialising"? Plenty of people are perfectly happy with choosing one dish while they meet with their friends. If it makes you feel uncomfortable then that is your own problem.

As for your suggestion that people with small appetites should stick to the local Beefeater or Hungry Horse or KFC - perhaps they do enjoy eating small amounts of better quality food?

I don't believe I suggested that. Someone else suggested this might be a good choice for people on a limited budget.

I've never been to KFC in my life.

onlyroz

Before we had kids my husband and I would eat out most Saturdays. We would often have a main and a drink each and the bill would come to £20-25 total. For us this was just dinner and a chance to have a nice time without having to cook. No need to always have multiple courses or masses of drink, and we still managed to have fun.

onlyroz

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I don't believe I suggested that. Someone else suggested this might be a good choice for people on a limited budget.

I've never been to KFC in my life.

You suggested that it wasn't a proper meal out unless you had three courses and a mountain of drink, and that people should choose places that would enable them to do this on a lower budget. I don't understand why you are baffled that people might prefer to have a smaller amont of better quality food.

And before anyone accuses me of snobbery there's nothing wrong with eating at Beefeater or KFC. Most people like different places depending on their mood and the occasion.