large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

Jagraf

Our conversation last night (based on two courses for £11.99 rather than each course being about £7)

"Shall we go for starter and main, or main and dessert?"
"What are the puddings like?"
"Not as good as the starters"
"Ok starter and main"

All of us have different appetites so some chose lighter options, but we all chose a starter and a main. It was a lovely family restaurant and we tried each other's with our own forks.

All except one drank alcohol although the soft drinks weren't that much cheaper. Two of us had coffee. Bill came to £80 - £20 each plus we paid £10 tip as they drove.

This was the first time we had eaten out with these friends. We chose a restaurant within our affirdability for all of us. I can't imagine us having starters and them not, or the other way around. If someone couldn't afford IT, we would have done something else.

Personally (and I'm not saying my wsy is right) if someone had decided to not go with the majority and we were sat there working out who paid £2 more I wouldn't choose them as my Saturday night meal out companions.

seven-day-weekend

Pollycat wrote: »

Do you know that from personal experience or did you do this?

No! I have never done it, nor would I, it is unfaithfulness no matter what spin you try and put on it. Some friends of mine used to swing (they are divorced now ). And yes, they did have a huge clump of pampas grass in the garden.

Jagraf

onlyroz wrote: »

How is it different? In either situation how is your meal ruined if somebody eats a different number of courses to you?

Your solution to stopping your meal from being "ruined" seems to be to force people to order more food than they want. How is this better? You still have people not eating while others are - just that they now have a full plate of food in front of them that they don't want, rather than having them patiently wait for the next course.

Would people seriously prefer me to order and waste a plate of food just so that they can feel better about the amount that they are eating themselves?

I have a friend and we have in the past run together. She is much fitter than me but runs at my pace so that we can run together. That is the point. If she did what she wanted and I did what I wanted we wouldn't be running together she would be running off ahead of me. Sometimes it's nice to do things as a team rather than independently going with what each chooses to do. people make allowances for the greater good and overall enjoyment of everyone. I suppose it depends what everyone's idea of a "good meal out" is.

Pollycat

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

No! I have never done it, nor would I, it is unfaithfulness no matter what spin you try and put on it. Some friends of mine used to swing (they are divorced now ). And yes, they did have a huge clump of pampas grass in the garden.

I'm never going to look at random front gardens in the same way again.

onlyroz

Jagraf wrote:

This was the first time we had eaten out with these friends. We chose a restaurant within our affirdability for all of us. I can't imagine us having starters and them not, or the other way around. If someone couldn't afford IT, we would have done something else.

Personally (and I'm not saying my wsy is right) if someone had decided to not go with the majority and we were sat there working out who paid £2 more I wouldn't choose them as my Saturday night meal out companions.

So if someone had said "I can only manage a main" and had thrown a fiver less into the pot you would never eat out with them again? Is such a scenario really so "unimaginable" to you? Would you have preferred them to order a starter anyway and then leave it untouched? How bizarre.

onlyroz

Jagraf wrote: »

I have a friend and we have in the past run together. She is much fitter than me but runs at my pace so that we can run together. That is the point. If she did what she wanted and I did what I wanted we wouldn't be running together she would be running off ahead of me. Sometimes it's nice to do things as a team rather than independently going with what each chooses to do. people make allowances for the greater good and overall enjoyment of everyone. I suppose it depends what everyone's idea of a "good meal out" is.

So my dad, with only half a stomach, should order three courses he doesn't want "for the greater good"? You would prefer him to sit there with a plate of food he doesn't want and cannot eat just to make you feel better? How bizarre.

onlyroz

Regarding the running thing. I go swimming with my mum every week. I am faster than her. We agree to swim for 30 minutes, then have a 10 minute break, then swim for another 30 minutes. That way we both get to exercise at our own pace but still have a nice chat in the middle.

I see some people swim slowly in pairs chatting the whole way through. To me that's not a proper way of getting exercise, but each to their own.

onlyroz

PasturesNew wrote: »

No, he'd spoil it for everybody! He should stay at home :P

Obviously he has been thoughlessly ruining everybody's meals for years.

missbiggles1

onlyroz wrote: »

How is it different? In either situation how is your meal ruined if somebody eats a different number of courses to you?

Your solution to stopping your meal from being "ruined" seems to be to force people to order more food than they want. How is this better? You still have people not eating while others are - just that they now have a full plate of food in front of them that they don't want, rather than having them patiently wait for the next course.

Would people seriously prefer me to order and waste a plate of food just so that they can feel better about the amount that they are eating themselves?

Fortunately we'll never have to eat a meal together which will be, I'm sure, a relief to us both.

Georgiegirl256

Jagraf wrote: »

Personally (and I'm not saying my wsy is right) if someone had decided to not go with the majority and we were sat there working out who paid £2 more I wouldn't choose them as my Saturday night meal out companions.

I find that sad that (say for example I was a friend of yours) I'd be excluded from the nights out because I fancied a pudding instead of a starter.

Personally I don't choose my friends by their dietary requirements or choices.