large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

Peter333

I do have to fly though. Apologies for thinking people were having a go at me when they weren't, and throwing a strop.

Laterz.

Georgiegirl256

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Never seen that either (I'd remember - it sounds disgusting).

On the other hand I have seen lots of places with variations of mushroom or asparagus risotto as the main vegetarian option which is why I pointed out that vegetarian food often costs just as much (if not more) than non vegetarian.

Funnily enough, I've never seen mushroom or asparagus risotto on any menus! :rotfl:

Do you not like brocolli or cheese then? Because that's basically all it is! I like it with chips to mop up the cheesy sauce!

pollypenny

Our local, family-run Italian restaurant does an amazing vegetarian lasagne!

Unfortunately the owner/chef is reducing opening hours, winding down to retiring and his son is not prepared to take over the business. A real shame.

missbiggles1

onlyroz wrote: »

The Blue Elephant isn't an Indian restaurant and doesn't offer a buffet.

No, but it is part of a chain and not really fine dining.

(Although it does sound tasty.)

pollypenny

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Funnily enough, I've never seen mushroom or asparagus risotto on any menus! :rotfl:

Do you not like brocolli or cheese then? Because that's basically all it is! I like it with chips to mop up the cheesy sauce!

Risotto, of various types, has become the default veg meal in restaurants, replacing the omelette for which I was expected to be grateful up until the 80s.

Georgiegirl256

pollypenny wrote: »

Risotto, of various types, has become the default veg meal in restaurants, replacing the omelette for which I was expected to be grateful up until the 80s.

If I ever see it on a menu, I might give it a try as it sounds nice....as long as it isn't too sloppy!

Andypandyboy

onlyroz wrote: »

The Blue Elephant isn't an Indian restaurant and doesn't offer a buffet.

Yes, it is Thai. We have a Blue Elephant close by which is Indian!

I just looked and you don't have to stipulate in advance that you want the tasting menu. So, it appears that it is really just a la carte but chosen for you. That is, all the choices are readily available on the ordinary menu.

With traditional tasting menus they are not usually on the regular menu. So if you choose a la carte you would not see the same dishes.

That is probably why they do two people minimum, but from your perspective if you want free choice you would still not be happy if you had to eat what your companion chose

missbiggles1

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Personally - I'd regard "wild and exotic mushrooms" etc as equivalent to luxury meat-eater courses and think "Honour is satisfied" about that.:)

I will carry on hoping that that sort of thing will be deemed to be my "equivalent" when eating out personally - as I have yet to encounter that personally. Will keep my fingers crossed after you've mentioned that - as I'm from southern England (and still go back for visits at intervals). If it's going to happen anywhere - then it will happen in southern England - so I live in hopes:)

I'd love the chance to have a go at trying truffles (for instance) personally - but have never yet spotted them on a menu anywhere as an option personally. Darn it - as I've been waiting for a chance to try them out for literally years personally:(

Maybe that sort of thing is a bit London-centric?????? - and I'm "southern England" but not "London-centric" and that's why I have not come across this yet????

I only know the taste of truffles from using truffle oil but my vegetatian friends tell me they tend to think "not mushroom risotto again!" it turns up on menus.

Not sure about London -centric but it seems to have been considerd a cliche in Melbourne 6 years ago!

http://www.melbournegastronome.com/2010/05/because-lifes-too-short-for-vegetarians.html

mumps

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.

No eating too much is one definition of greedy but the other common definition is Having greed; consumed by selfish desires.

In all the online dictionaries I have looked at eating too much is always the 2nd definition.

Because of the topic it is easy to misunderstand how it is being used. I have seen people on here explaining that it was people want more than they paid for (or more than their fair share?) that they meant. That seems entirely reasonable to me, I think it is greedy and selfish to think you should always get more than you pay for and other people should always subsidise that. People might be happy to do it because they consider it the norm or because they are nice people but that doesn't mean that the man who always chooses the 12 oz steak and wants to choose an expensive wine and have a brandy shouldn't stop and think that maybe he should offer to put a bit extra in. I would have thought that was just good manners.

missbiggles1

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Funnily enough, I've never seen mushroom or asparagus risotto on any menus! :rotfl:

Do you not like brocolli or cheese then? Because that's basically all it is! I like it with chips to mop up the cheesy sauce!

I love cheese, just can't stand broccoli - or most green vegetables, for that matter. I'd make a terrible (but really thin) vegetarian.:)