large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

mumps

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

:rotfl: I do though! (Give or take the odd couple of things)

I make a lovely one pot meal - Squash, kale and bacon one pot, and it's very tasty! In autumn/winter, we have a lot of squash/squash and roasted red pepper soup.

Even my Mam who is a fussy eater has started to eat and enjoy kale.

Sweet potatoes are ok, but as the name suggests, they are (to me anyhow) too sweet, and I'd rather stick to normal potatoes.

I'm not a vegetarian but I do like most veg and eat quite alot but I have a strong aversion to red cabbage. Not sure what that's all about but it is the one veg that I can't even stand on my plate. I tell my grandchildren to stop making a fuss and leave things on their plate if they don't want them, used to do the same with their parents and yet I can't do it with red cabbage.

seven-day-weekend

Pastures New, I did find your words quite hurtful ...but I also accepted what you said about it being your humour, because I don't always 'get' some types of humour. So we'll leave that one there.

You say you can't work out where you were nasty..... well, calling people greedy oiks of varying descriptions because they enjoy a meal and drink is not very nice either, is it?

I agree they shouldn't try to make you subsidise their appetite, but they have as much right to eat and drink what they want as you have.

That's one instance where you were nasty. Now you know.

missbiggles1

PasturesNew wrote: »

Well, as I said, that's not how it was intended at all. But that's how it was received and I can't change that.

No, but you could apologise.

mumps

Am I alone in having a bizarre image of Esther Williams in a Hollywood blockbuster about synchronised eating as she swims across a pool with a peg on her nose and a big grin on her face? I think I must be feverish.

seven-day-weekend

PasturesNew wrote: »

Sorry!


That wasn't how it was meant to be received, it didn't mean "all people who...." just the ones who are greedy oiks and do it
Maybe the word greedy is also a word interpreted differently by different people.



Thank you

I've never any idea what/why has 'upset' people when it happens - and it always does

I'm not sure what this means.

If you mean that not all people who enjoy more than one course and drink more than cokes are greedy oiks, then I'd agree with you.

I'm not sure who ARE the greedy oiks though. You talk about people ordering big steaks. Well maybe they have a big appetite, and want to go home feeling satisfied. Maybe they like a brandy after their meal to help them mellow. Maybe they even like big prawns.

I repeat again, there is no reason why you should subsidise their choices, but enjoying their food and having a large appetite does not make them greedy nor oiks, imho.

seven-day-weekend

PasturesNew wrote: »

I thought I had! You must've missed it. Or you do it differently where you come from.

I'm sorry I'm like I am, but until there's a cure I'm stuck with being me.

I don't think you did at the time, but you have now, apology accepted.

moneyistooshorttomention

Imo it does happen sometimes that people who are making a "general" comment that honestly isnt aimed at anyone in particular can find that a particular person (mis)interprets it as being aimed at them personally.

It's not clear why it happens - but it does sometimes happen and people interpret posts as "personal" when they honestly arent.

Which can then lead to them posting back a comment that quite definitely IS "personal" and not acceptable and they dont see the difference between someone having made a "general" comment about what they think about a particular way of acting etc (which there is nothing wrong with - as it's just expressing an opinion and isnt "personal" at all) and their response (which is aimed "personally" and therefore there IS something wrong with it).

Hopefully I've expressed this clearly enough - but it is something I've seen happen frequently on the Boards (ie a "personal" attack type comment in response to an "impersonal" expressing an opinion type comment).

It may be that someone takes something "personally" that isnt meant that way because of something that is going on in their own life at the time. It may be that the "personal" commenter holds what they feel is the current "majority opinion" and they are trying to bring the person that made an objective comment "in line" and make them hold what they perceive to be the "current majority viewpoint". The jury is still out on that - and it could be a bit of both sometimes.

onlyroz

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

No....if they think the conversation is more important than the food, what's the point of going to a restaurant? You can talk at home or over a coffee!!

It's not more important, it is equally important - if only the food is important you could equally say "why not just have dinner at home"? The point of eating out as a group is to enjoy good food and good company. Being forced to eat more or less than you want to satisfy the whims of your dining companions doesn't some like much fun to me.

seven-day-weekend

onlyroz wrote: »

It's not more important, it is equally important - if only the food is important you could equally say "why not just have dinner at home"? The point of eating out as a group is to enjoy good food and good company. Being forced to eat more or less than you want to satisfy the whims of your dining companions doesn't some like much fun to me.

Because you have to cook it yourself.

NewShadow

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Imo it does happen sometimes that people who are making a "general" comment that honestly isnt aimed at anyone in particular can find that a particular person (mis)interprets it as being aimed at them personally.

I agree with MTSTM

I've read all of this thread (give or take a few pages around 50ish), and while I think PN has expressed some very strong opinions and outlined some extreme personal experiences, I haven't read anything targeted at any individuals here.

While PN might well regret anyone feeling bad as a result of her posts, as an impartial observer, I would not say she attacked any individual with malice.

On the other hand, some of the posters have responded to some of those posts with quite personal criticisms and challenges - indicating they are responding defensively to a perceived attack.

I would suggest anyone reading any contributions on this tread understand that peoples views do vary, that humour and intent do not transmit well via the written word, and that it's very unlikely that anyone on this thread cares about your specific eating habits (as opposed to sharing general experiences and views).

My nan always used to say - if there are two ways to read something, why not assume it's meant the least offensive way. You'll be much happier.