large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

seven-day-weekend

I still don't understand what this 'tasting menu' is and why everyone has to partake of it???

Now, up to date :I have just been for a Sunday Carvery with another person. We both had the carvery but he also had two pints of beer and I only had coffee. Should I have asked him to pay more than me?

Andypandyboy

Peter333 wrote: »

PMSL!!! They do actually sell port there. :rotfl:

Anybody who was advocating a good port ( who knew what they were talking about) wouldn't mention they bought it from Rome any more than they would say they got it from Tesco.

ETA I read as though he had said that, which was just more evidence that he was a bit pompous.

duchy

Peter333 wrote: »

Are people so bored today that they have to pick apart EVERYTHING people say?!

Clearly no-one was invited out for Sunday lunch.....Can't think why :rotfl:

Peter333

Andypandyboy wrote: »

Anybody who was advocating a good port ( who knew what they were talking about) wouldn't mention they bought it from Rome any more than they would say they got it from Tesco.

I rest my case. ^^^

I was simply telling Georgie a little story that went along with something she said, and people are tearing it apart.

Utterly pathetic.

I'm done on here for today. The pettiness and backbiting on here is somewhere between laughable and pathetic.

Andypandyboy

onlyroz wrote: »

There is a difference in being told in advance that there will be a set menu, and being told upon arrival at a restaurant that you can only choose from a restricted set of options when you know that there are more choices available.

It's like the people who say that the whole table must have a starter and a main because that's what they want.

There's nothing wrong with being invited to an event which you know from the start will involve a set menu (e.g. the office Christmas party) - but why try and impose draconian rules on diners when there is no need for it?

If you go for the tasting menu it is clearly mentioned on the website or you are informed when booking by phone that all the table must have it. It is up to the group concerned to agree which way to go.

Georgiegirl256

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

On this very thread, people who want to eat more than one course and/or have a few alcoholic drinks have been called greedy. It was then explained away by saying that it was only when they expected others to subsidise their choice that they 'became' greedy, but that doesn't make sense, greedy is about how much you eat, not how you pay for it. So at least one person on here finds people eating more than them greedy.

If you actually google the definition of 'greedy', it not only brings up it's meaning in relation to food, it also brings up it's other meanings too....grasping, materialistic, money grabbing etc.

So ordering more food and wine than others and then expecting them to pay for it, is very much the definition of greediness.

The only time I would apply it to someone eating food, is if they ate it to excess so that they were literally bursting and in discomfort, and therefore taking away the enjoyment of what they've just consumed.

Andypandyboy

Peter333 wrote: »

I rest my case. ^^^

I was simply telling Georgie a little story that went along with something she said, and people are tearing it apart.

Utterly pathetic.

I'm done on here for today. The pettiness and backbiting on here is somewhere between laughable and pathetic.

Read my ETA, it wasn't you that I was meaning but the person you were speaking about.

missbiggles1

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

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....).

I don't think I've ever seen a vegetarian lasagne on a menu, much less see it all the time.

Plenty of things that vegetarians eat (wild and exotic mushrooms, truffles, certain cheeses) are far more expensive than meat options, particularly if you're eating something like confit belly pork or lamb shanks.

onlyroz

Andypandyboy wrote: »

If you go for the tasting menu it is clearly mentioned on the website or you are informed when booking by phone that all the table must have it. It is up to the group concerned to agree which way to go.

It is clearly mentioned on the websites of some establishments that offer tasting menus. There are many others that don't impose such draconian rules on their diners.

Peter333

Andypandyboy wrote: »

Read my ETA, it wasn't you that I was meaning but the person you were speaking about.

I'm sorry. I was under the impression it was me being attacked. Didn't realise it was aimed at the man I was on about. Especially as another poster seemed to have a go at me shortly after.

Apologies. I guess I just expect people to have a go at me on here. Maybe I should read the posts properly!