large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

seven-day-weekend

onlyroz wrote: »

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.

Yes, we do that too. All I'm saying is that IF I was with a crowd of people all eating, I would not want to be the one with the empty plate and the glass of water. To me that is not joining in with the activity - like I said above, it's like going to the cinema with a bunch of friends but only watching 1/4 of the film.

But that's only mho.

seven-day-weekend

onlyroz wrote: »

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.

No.....what I meant was that if they wanted to eat more there were cheaper places, and that they needen't just have one course because that is all they can afford.

My husband and I actually usually only have the one course,when we go out, but if I were out with people all eating, I would not want to be the one sat there twiddling my thumbs around my glass of tap water.

duchy

No wonder this country has many problems with eating disorders !
Sharing a meal doesn't mean you have to eat exactly the same amount ...and if the conversation is really good why are youfocusing on what someone does or doesn't currently have on their plate ?

Most people who don't order a starter are doing so because they don't fancy any of the starters, prefer to make healthier choices or are q/making sure they will have enough room for dessert. They really really won't feel bereft and not having an onion bhaji won't ruin their evening so shouldn't ruin yours.

Person_one

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Yes, we do that too. All I'm saying is that IF I was with a crowd of people all eating, I would not want to be the one with the empty plate and the glass of water. To me that is not joining in with the activity - like I said above, it's like going to the cinema with a bunch of friends but only watching 1/4 of the film.

But that's only mho.

It's nothing like that at all. A film is a single thing, it's to be enjoyed as a whole, as it is, or not at all. A restaurant offers lots of different options, all of which are equally valid ways to enjoy the experience.

I've even sat and had just a drink while friends ate, at least once that I can remember, because it was an impromptu thing and I'd already eaten that evening but was happy to meet up to see them.

Georgiegirl256

Person_one wrote: »

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

I think the one below might just have pipped it to the post! :rotfl:

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

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

That makes no sense whatsoever! :rotfl:

seven-day-weekend

look... you go out to eat, so you eat. That's the purpose of going.

onlyroz

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

No.....what I meant was that if they wanted to eat more there were cheaper places, and that they needen't just have one course because that is all they can afford.

My husband and I actually usually only have the one course,when we go out, but if I were out with people all eating, I would not want to be the one sat there twiddling my thumbs around my glass of tap water.

I asked yo before but you never answered - why do you need a plate of food in front of you to enjoy your friend's company? And why does it diminish your own enjoyment of your meal if the person with you isn't eating?

seven-day-weekend

onlyroz wrote: »

I asked yo before but you never answered - why do you need a plate of food in front of you to enjoy your friend's company? And why does it diminish your own enjoyment of your meal if the person with you isn't eating?

I don't need a plate of food in front of me to enjoy their company. But if I have agreed to meet them to eat, then I expect them to eat.

Georgiegirl256

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

look... you go out to eat, so you eat. That's the purpose of going.

My point is, what if you have a small appetite but appreciate good food at a good restaurant? It's still going out to eat, but you're maybe only having maybe a starter and a main meal because that's all you fancy/can manage. Why on earth would anyone have a problem with that?

seven-day-weekend

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

My point is, what if you have a small appetite but appreciate good food at a good restaurant? It's still going out to eat, but you're maybe only having maybe a starter and a main meal because that's all you fancy/can manage. Why on earth would anyone have a problem with that?

I don't have a problem with that. It's the person with the tiny plate and glass of water I have trouble with, because it seems to me that they do not want to eat, so why have they come?

However, I'm obviously in a minority here, so I'll say no more about it.