large booking at restaurant- how to split the bill?

Domayne

Pollycat wrote: »

So why did you bang on about your friends - describing what you do with them in such detail - when I'd clearly not referred to this couple as friends?

You ask why I don't want to dine with them.
I think Duchy puts it very well:

Of couse, as I've already explained, they are not actually friends so are unaware of what 'pushes our buttons'.
And as such we don't value their friendship.
They are friends of friends and our friends invited both couples to eat out.
So there's no arranging of alternative things to do - because they are not friends.

Has that satisfied your curiosity?

Not really. But if their behaviour is that unacceptable that you can't stand to be around them for an hour or so that's your lookout. I still think it's a miserable stance though unless like I said there's a lot of other reasons you just don't like them. But I'm not someone who gets annoyed easily so I'm usually left bewildered by peoples actions, It's not uncommon

duchy

Domayne wrote: »

And I do understand that. I never jumped on anyone for being territorial over their food, that's fair enough.
My sister is like that, finds it hard to 'share' her food and definately won't share cutlery with you which I do find odd because I just don't care about things like that.
I do respect other people have boundaries even though I have none it seems but I do have genuine bafflement as to why it's just so bad you would not want to see them altogether when it's not affecting YOUR plate specifically? (General you used here)
I have a lot of issues with societal norms and expectations at the best of times, just seems like a massive minefield!

I think that is probably where this thread started - when a poster claimed that their meal out would be ruined if a member of a group she was having dinner with didn't have a starter and she'd prefer they stayed home.

To me that's nuts- I don't dine with people to watch them eat -but to share their company - likewise I don't always want to drink alcohol in a pub but I don't care if my companions do - but where the line is drawn between what is "live and let live" when someone is doing something different to you in your company clearly varies from person to person. I don't care if you want to have a starter instead of a pudding - but yeah I might find you eating them with your hands put me off my meal so I'd probably not dine with you again in a nice restaurant ......and next time suggest we went to a burger place where eating with hands was an accepted custom

People are always going to have different "things" the trick is to find compromise - so you can still enjoy the good things about them with a little bit of give and take rather than a massive compromise on one side or the other.

Georgiegirl256

duchy wrote: »

There's always the point that if you are paying good money to eat out that you don't want that experience marred or spoiled by behaviour that would put you off your food.

roz posted pages back the clip "No-one eats Joey's food". The reason that was funny was because an awful lot of people ARE "territorial" about their food and chip pinchers are annoying or off putting depending on your tolerance level and hygiene standards.....even without OCD tendencies to many people.
.

My tolerance levels of people messing with my food or indeed their own is low, and my hygiene standards are high, so it goes without saying, I'm very easily put off my food. So your first paragraph sums it up perfectly for me.

duchy

Domayne wrote: »

Suppose it's the same thing as the people who can't have a starter or a dessert if your not having one - They don't feel comfortable with their choices unless they have it validated by someone else.

Or for them it's all about the food and the conversation is a far more minor part of their experience ?

You can ask ten people what they enjoyed most about a night out , they may have experienced the same menu and the same company but you're still likely to get ten different answers.

seven-day-weekend

If I go to a restaurant to eat, it's more about the food than the company. I can socialise at home or in a pub.

I go out to eat on my own sometimes.

So therefore if someone is not enjoying the experience of eating, it spoils my enjoyment too. My having to scrimp because you've only got a fiver isn't my idea of fun, because I feel I can't have what I want if you are sitting there with a glum look and an empty plate. I'd rather pay for you to enjoy yourself or not go at all and socialise at home.

Just mho.

Pollycat

Domayne wrote: »

Not really. But if their behaviour is that unacceptable that you can't stand to be around them for an hour or so that's your lookout. I still think it's a miserable stance though unless like I said there's a lot of other reasons you just don't like them. But I'm not someone who gets annoyed easily so I'm usually left bewildered by peoples actions, It's not uncommon

Well, sorry to disappoint you.

As you say, it most definitely is my 'lookout'.

We clearly have such opposite ideas of what constitutes acceptable behaviour that you will never understand.
But that's your lookout.

And this post sums it up perfectly for me:

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

My tolerance levels of people messing with my food or indeed their own is low, and my hygiene standards are high, so it goes without saying, I'm very easily put off my food. So your first paragraph sums it up perfectly for me.

Georgiegirl256

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

If I go to a restaurant to eat, it's more about the food than the company. I can socialise at home or in a pub.l

I go out to eat on my own sometimes.

So therefore if someone is not enjoying the experience of eating, it spoils my enjoyment too. Having to scrimp because you've only got a fiver isn't my idea of fun . I'd rather pay for you to enjoy yourself or not go at all and socialise at home.

I find that quite sad actually. So basically if you're going out for an occassion say with family and friends, then the food is more important than the company? If I go out to a restaurant where the food is stunningly good, even then I would still say that I enjoyed both 50/50. Food for me would never come before a person. If you told me that it was more about the food than my company, then I'd be offended tbh! Trumped by an onion bhaji! :rotfl:

What's your stance on say someone who can totally afford all that's on offer but only chooses to eat 1 or 2 courses because that's what they choose/can manage? They're coming out to the restaurant because they want to experience the food/atmosphere.

duchy

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

If I go to a restaurant to eat, it's more about the food than the company. I can socialise at home or in a pub.

I go out to eat on my own sometimes.

So therefore if someone is not enjoying the experience of eating, it spoils my enjoyment too. My having to scrimp because you've only got a fiver isn't my idea of fun, because I feel I can't have what I want if you are sitting there with a glum look and an empty plate. I'd rather pay for you to enjoy yourself or not go at all and socialise at home.

Just mho.

I don't understand where the glum look comes from?
If someone has chosen to have one or two courses to your three - and it's their choice - why would they look glum ?

Maybe it's that they expected a night of conversation - whereas your focus is the food and not the company ? So your expectations are not the same ?

seven-day-weekend

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

I find that quite sad actually. So basically if you're going out for an occassion say with family and friends, then the food is more important than the company? If I go out to a restaurant where the food is stunningly good, even then I would still say that I enjoyed both 50/50. Food for me would never come before a person. If you told me that it was more about the food than my company, then I'd be offended tbh!

What's your stance on say someone who can totally afford all that's on offer but only chooses to eat 1 or 2 courses because that's what they choose/can manage?

As long as they are having what they want and are enjoying it, fine. It's people not having what they want that puts a damper on things.

I do enjoy peoples' company, but don't need to go to a restaurant to do so, the same as you don't need to go to the zoo or to watch a film. I can also enjoy their company whilst eating, but it will spoil my experience if they are not having what they want.

Let's get this straight, I'm not talking about people who only want a small portion, but people who only have the cheapest because they can't afford any more, even though they would like to eat more. In that case, I wish they'd have told me they couldn't afford it before we went, then we could have sorted something out, other than them depriving themselves.

Georgiegirl256

Right, got ya!

I see what you mean, even if I don't agree with it.