large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

missbiggles1

Peter333 wrote: »

LOL, we have a neighbour like that. He invited me and my wife, and his brother around some months back to taste this exquisite port he had got from Rome (or somewhere terribly exotic!) And it was 15/16 years old. He was so proud of this 1999 port! And he was a little snooty about wine and port, like he knew more than everyone else about it.

Well he opened it, and I don't know what happened, but it tasted like sour lemons. Me and my wife smiled politely, and I said 'unusual taste.'

Long story short, his brother said 'Jeez, the cork must have come dislodged, this tastes like cat pee.' :rotfl:

He got put firmly in his place!

Why would he be buying port from Italy?

Homeownertobe

missbiggles1 wrote: »

As I said earlier (perhaps you missed it?) several people gave explanations many pages back. I'm afraid it isn't our fault that you couldn't understand them.:D

I think it's more a sense of being deliberately obtuse than anything else.

Or perhaps it's down to malnutrition?;)

Andypandyboy

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

My point is that you have said to PN that going out socially seems a bit "fraught" (ie were suggesting she should stay home in order not to get into what you would describe as "fraught situations") and I was pointing out that even staying quietly at home can be a bit "fraught" as well (ie social context of noticing what the neighbours are up to that they "didn't oughter be").

In or out - one can find that some peoples way of operating "leaves a bit to be desired". So PN might as well go out and enjoy her meals out and hope there isn't a "Mr Steak and Lobster" guy there taking the michael out of everyone.

Is there actually any context where things might not get a bit "fraught"? - because I've not yet come across it....

I suppose that depends on where you live, how closely you monitor your neighbours activities and by whose yardstick those activities are deemed unacceptable?

Personally, I am on good terms with all my neighbours, I don't deliberately monitor their activites though, and they have never done anything which I would say was outside the norm of acceptable behaviours.

I don't do "fraught" on a daily basis, so I think that although there is always the potential in any situation there is usually a simple solution to most things and that is the one I generally take.

PN may or may not be fraught at home, or in other non eating scenarios, but it seemed she was definately fraught when eating out, which is why I and others said different outlets may suit her better.

Homeownertobe

PasturesNew wrote: »

They're just selfish then, if there's room. Of course, the catering requirements could dictate it. Were they cooking the meal themselves? Or did they buy in a "package" where they're charged per head? You'd be counted/charged as a head if it were an outside catering firm organising it.

Or, maybe they just don't like you.

I'm not sure why you think it's acceptable to make this kind of personal attacks but it really is putting paid to the claims that you're 'timid'.

moneyistooshorttomention

...and you know the thing that doesnt seem to have come up to date?

That is - the huge proportion of people that have allergies/are dieting/etc/etc....

The question of someone being able to eat very little because of a health concern that has meant they literally cant eat very much has come up - and is a very valid point.

Am I the only one on this thread well-used to people saying they are vegetarian/vegan/gluten-free/etc/etc and expecting that its necessary to ensure that everyone is catered for for their personal requirements. I don't necessarily agree that everyone that says they must be gluten-free (for instance) really is in that position - BUT if I am the one in any sort of "host" position then it's not up to me personally to form any judgement on that. It's just up to me to make sure that everyone involved can eat a full meal (or the nearest they ever come to a full meal).

My "code of modern manners" includes always asking people that I have round for a meal what foods they cant or wont eat and catering accordingly. So I don't understand why anyone would regard things any differently in a restaurant...

It does make life more of a hassle to ensure everyone is catered to - but that's how the cookie crumbles and its just one of those things. So - I've got a friend that says they can't eat peppers, a couple of friends that say they have to be gluten-free. For my part - I won't eat meat and I want my food to be healthy (if at all possible). That's just how it is...it's the 21st century now and adapt accordingly is my viewpoint.

Still reeling with surprise from the way that I was out with some friends the other day and they fancied something from a chippie and I thought I'd have a "little something" to accompany them and ordered a portion of chips without thinking twice about it. Fortunately, the server asked me if I'm a vegetarian first - as it honestly hadnt occurred to me that there are some parts of the country that don't fry their chips in oil automatically these days. I had to tell them to cancel the order:( - as the server had the sense to tell me that they were fried in beef dripping:(. Shrugs....@,their loss.co.uk> - as I just cancelled my order and didn't buy anything from them. (Yep...me in Protest Mode and "Get with it - it's now the 21st century":rotfl:).

Andypandyboy

I think we have moved away fro the premise of the thread. which was splitting the bill. To do it or not does not impact choices made, be they Vegan, Veggie etc.Nor does it usually impact the number of courses. I regularly eat out with a veggie and they eat more than me.

elsien

There's also the people with "intolerances" ie nothing much wrong with them who seem to make a much bigger deal of it than those with genuine allergies/illnesses. I have sympathy for those for whom it is a real issue but I strongly suspect they are outnumbered by the daddy ones.
Parent used to enjoy cooking for a group of friends but is no longer doing it due to the number of people who can't/won't eat certain things. When did it become ok to dictate a menu beforehand because you don't eat fish, or whatever?

moneyistooshorttomention

Andypandyboy wrote: »

I think we have moved away fro the premise of the thread. which was splitting the bill. To do it or not does not impact choices made, be they Vegan, Veggie etc.Nor does it usually impact the number of courses. I regularly eat out with a veggie and they eat more than me.

You've not tried asking them how they feel about being charged as much for, say, a vegetarian option (lasagne - always blinkin' lasagne:(:mad::() as a meat-eater would pay for a "luxury" type main course then?

Maybe they eat more in order to "even things out" for the fact that vegetarian food is basically normally cheaper than standard meat-eating diet? This is certainly one of the reasons I personally don't eat meat - ie that I can't afford it (ie because I would only contemplate "happy" meat - if that....).

I've long since lost count of how many vegetarians have agreed with me that it simply isnt fair for vegetarians to have to pay the same sort of price for their "everyday" main course as a meat-eater pays for their "luxury" main course.:(:mad::(. If meat-eaters are having a prime steak type meal - then we want/are entitled to have the vegetarian equivalent for our money (not that blimmin' vegetarian lasagne - yet again....).

splishsplash

onlyroz wrote: »

So you don't have an answer then to why your meal would be ruined if I ate a different number of courses to you? Didn't think so.

However, I do think my own meal would be ruined if you told me that I must buy three courses that I didn't want, and had no chance of finishing, just to make you feel better. I think the restaurant owners would be insulted too, if I left most of the food I ordered - would you be willing to explain to them that you had made me order twice as much food as I wanted just to make you feel better, and that I wasn't actually insulting them or their kitchen staff?

Usually when we go out as a group from work for dinner, we do a deal beforehand with the restaurant for the table d'hote menu + wine.

That means everyone pays the same price whether they're having starters, desserts, wine or not.

Would you be of the opinion that you were subsidising those who chose three courses in this situation?

Pollycat

splishsplash wrote: »

Usually when we go out as a group from work for dinner, we do a deal beforehand with the restaurant for the table d'hote menu + wine.

That means everyone pays the same price whether they're having starters, desserts, wine or not.

Would you be of the opinion that you were subsidising those who chose three courses in this situation?

I think if I was only wanting to eat one course & not drink any wine, I'd feel that yes, I was subsidising those people who had 3 course and a bottle of wine.
Unless of course the deal you struck was so cheap the the amount per person was around the same price as one course.
Which is extremely doubtful.