Jump to content

Thrown Out of a Restaurant (Not Me)


Waitman

Recommended Posts

So, intrepid New York Times diner-blogger tells evidently trendy NYC chef to lay off the Gordon Ramsay imitation 'cause it's spooking the diners. Chef throws intrepid diner-blogger out of the restaurant.

Who's the dick?

"About ten minutes after my party of four sat down, we heard yelling — loud, sustained, top-of-lungs yelling — coming from the kitchen. Mr. Forgione was dressing down a member of the staff, in full view of many of the customers. The dining room quieted as patrons exchanged uncomfortable glances".

I'll throw my ducat in: the chef. Not that he's not allowed to beat his help like rented mules -- though I've always found there to be a bright line between loud, blunt corrections or instructions under the pressure of service and the kind of abuse Lieber suggests. But because action so grotesque that it silences a room full of New Yorkers is not only clearly unseemly but wildly unprofessional. If the hostess's cell-phone conversation, a waiter's ill-timed cigarette break or a line cook's greasy thumb-print are worthy of comment, then the chef casting a pall over the entire room surely is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to say that the chef was out of line for loudly berating his staff in front of the public. If I were to have someone come to my office to call me out for abusing my staff in public, I wouldn't get much sympathy. Now, I'm not the owner or big boss or anything, so it would be different that way. But I think that if someone called our boss out, we would still be required to provide the caller-outer professional service no matter what.

Having said that, the writer does sound a little bit defensive, but I think that may be a function of the medium and the comment - response thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both are dicks. If I'm dressing down an employee and you tell me how I should run my business, I will tell you it's none of your bloody business. If you don't like the way I run my business, then go somewhere else. Mostly it's his holier than thou attitude. I remember driving back to NYC to visit friends. I called a friend on my cell while I was driving - which is illegal - and a woman next to me was so upset that I was violating the law that she started yelling at me and not paying attention to traffic, she ends up rearending a car in front of her. Mind your own damn business. It ain't your place to tell him how to run his job. Just like it ain't your place to tell someone how to raise his/her kids - especially when there's no physical harm. If I was the chef, I'd taze the dude for trespassing in the kitchen.

The better call would probably have been to go to the GM.

Restaurant Marc Forgione. The chef is the owner. I don't think going to the GM will do anything at all when you know the one doing the yelling is the owner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mind your own damn business. It ain't your place to tell him how to run his job. Just like it ain't your place to tell someone how to raise his/her kids - especially when there's no physical harm. If I was the chef, I'd taze the dude for trespassing in the kitchen.

Bollocks.

It's that sort of attitude that enables people to victimize others, and I'd argue that it's every bit as damaging to society as a whole.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30105703/

..is it a good thing that the subway workers were "minding their own damn business?" If I see someone being attacked, I'm going to jump in. If I see someone being verbally assaulted, I'm going to say something. "Minding your business" is a method of self preservation and self-justification for those that choose to put themselves above the greater good of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bollocks.

It's that sort of attitude that enables people to victimize others, and I'd argue that it's every bit as damaging to society as a whole.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/30105703/

..is it a good thing that the subway workers were "minding their own damn business?" If I see someone being attacked, I'm going to jump in. If I see someone being verbally assaulted, I'm going to say something. "Minding your business" is a method of self preservation and self-justification for those that choose to put themselves above the greater good of society.

So I must whisper my criticism to my employee? According to you, I have the right to march into your kitchen or household and tell you how you should run your business or raise your children. You know, this is a free country and we're governed by laws, not whims. Marching into someone's kitchen uninvited is trespassing. No law condones trespassing unless you're preventing physical harm to someone. When there's no imminent threat of physical harm, you're the menace, not the savior. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I must whisper my criticism to my employee? According to you, I have the right to march into your kitchen or household and tell you how you should run your business or raise your children. You know, this is a free country and we're governed by laws, not whims. Marching into someone's kitchen uninvited is trespassing. No law condones trespassing unless you're preventing physical harm to someone. When there's no imminent threat of physical harm, you're the menace, not the savior. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Laws are established codes of conduct generally agreed upon by members of a society, not infallible moral commandments. If I'm driving with no other cars on the road and the person in the passenger seat is having a heart attack, I'm going to run a few red lights and go over the speed limit on the way to the hospital.

Also, if the crux of your argument is based solely on the letter of the law, I'm not sure if going into the kitchen (which it's not clear that the author did, as he even states in the article) even constitutes trespassing if he was already in the restaurant.

And it's a far stretch to say that I'm espousing entering a household uninvited and giving unsolicited parenting advice. I'm espousing intervention in instances of physical or verbal abuse, something that I have done before and have every intent of doing again should the situation present itself.

As for the "imminent threat of physical harm," would you be perfectly content to stand by as an elderly lady is verbally berated by a much larger man? There are people that prey on the weak in the world, and do so because they're enabled by the rest of society. I refuse to stand for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I must whisper my criticism to my employee? According to you, I have the right to march into your kitchen or household and tell you how you should run your business or raise your children. You know, this is a free country and we're governed by laws, not whims. Marching into someone's kitchen uninvited is trespassing. No law condones trespassing unless you're preventing physical harm to someone. When there's no imminent threat of physical harm, you're the menace, not the savior. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'd suggest that the greater sin is this case is not the dressing down of the employee. It's that the restaurant owner was unnecessarily making the meal very unpleasant for the entire restaurant.

The "marching into someone's kitchen uninvited is trespassing" line of reasoning is, not to put too fine a point on it, almost as moronic as the "the kitchen is a sacred place" line the chef spit out. Legally, doubt once can be permitted to enter the dining room, bar and bathroom but prosecuted for stepping through the swinging doors to the (open in this case) kitchen. Likewise, the kitchen is no more a holy place than the bays of my neighborhood automotive center or the cubicles of the local law firm. It's a work space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My original take on the vignette echoes much of Arcturus's sentiment above. This was not a situation for inaction.

However, I found flaw with the choice of action. Walking, uninvited and agitated, through swinging doors into a hostile environment containing several varieties of sharpened steel knives may be great drama in a Tarantino movie, but is unlikely to achieve conflict resolution.

Not to mention the ill-advisement of telling off the very person who, in another few minutes, will be responsible for your digestive health.

I commend the author for doing something. Kudos to anyone who moves to action when the conscience is screaming for action. However, if his objective was to continue to patronize the restaurant while reducing the abusive volume, there were several better ways to achieve that outcome. Adding his own anger and irritation to the mix was not one of them. He took the wrong action.

Most of the time when I have seen that type of behavior in an establishment, I have departed. I left a quick note, called later, or explained to the host on the way out to please pass on the basis for my departure. When leaving was not an option (too late to find another restaurant, too large of a party, etc.), I found another way to get feedback to the enraged manager. To Waitman's point, I made it more about the volume of their conversation, not a commentary on it's contents.

In a restaurant setting, it’s certainly a manager’s prerogative to do what he or she deems necessary to run the business. And it’s a diner’s choice to patronize venues that treat their employees a certain way.

Sometimes, your loudest voice needs to come from your feet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone in his employ, a subordinate manager, Sous, Maitre d', anyone, should have stepped up.

I've been in a similar situation where a tyrannical chef/owner berated a female server to the point that she was unable to work. It was an asinine amove nd completely counter to what his goals were - to make money. I went into his kitchen and let him have it. There were bulging veins and spittle flying, but I made sure he knew that if he ever did such a thing again, I was walking out instantly and most of the staff would be following.

Dressing down heatedly is different than abuse. Lord knows I have yelled at people in my day. Abuse, be it physical, mental, or verbal simply cannot be tolerated in the workplace.

The next day, the chef in question pulled the waitress aside and apologized. He did it in a private and personal manner, but every other restaurant employee knew something happened, because his bullying, boorish behavior stopped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "marching into someone's kitchen uninvited is trespassing" line of reasoning is, not to put too fine a point on it, almost as moronic as the "the kitchen is a sacred place" line the chef spit out. Legally, doubt once can be permitted to enter the dining room, bar and bathroom but prosecuted for stepping through the swinging doors to the (open in this case) kitchen. Likewise, the kitchen is no more a holy place than the bays of my neighborhood automotive center or the cubicles of the local law firm. It's a work space.

The question is your premise that workspaces are not subject to trespass, which I disagree. You cannot go into the workspaces at the White House. You cannot go onto a baseball field. You're not allowed into a law office and even if you're invited, you're not allowed to go into a cubicle. You're also not allowed in your nieghborhood automotive service bay. Most of these areas either have signs that says "keep out" or it is understood that those areas are private.

I started by saying both are dicks. The chef is a dick and you've already pointed out why and I see no reason to elaborate. I only question the behavior of this diner. It's quite clear he can't clearly recall what happened exactly. Assume he went into the kitchen, to me that crosses the line. As long as you're in a public area, you're just expressing your right to free speech. If you go to a private area, then you've committed a tort, which is actionable. (It's been a long time since I've dealt with trespass but that's my recollection).

As for intervening in other people's business. I'll use Arcturus' example and then give a similar example. Someone's is berating an old lady in public. There is no stipulation as to the relationship of the parties but no one's breaking the law and I'm ambivalent about whether you want to be a busybody or not - obviously you can be as long as you're not breaking the law, but there's also no requirement that someone should step it. What if you see someone scolding his child in public? I've seen bad parenting behavior before but I think the relationship between a parent and child is, for the lack of a better work, "sacred." Even in public one ought not to interfere with someone's parental relationship (absent physical harm), lest you want yourself to be subject to interruption based on someone else's standard of what constitutes good parenting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A chef with a well-known penchant for losing his temper at his staff, knew that it was a problem that he needed some help with. The next restaurant he opened had a kitchen that was open to the dining room, so that the customers could see and hear what was going on. He knew that he would never want his customers to hear him scream at one of his employees, or see him throw something. It worked. Apparently, Mr. Forgione of Manhattan, does not care if his customers see his rage-a-holism in full bloom. This is behavior that suggests a personality trait that could be described as pathological narcissism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A chef with a well-known penchant for losing his temper at his staff, knew that it was a problem that he needed some help with. The next restaurant he opened had a kitchen that was open to the dining room, so that the customers could see and hear what was going on. He knew that he would never want his customers to hear him scream at one of his employees, or see him throw something. It worked. Apparently, Mr. Forgione of Manhattan, does not care if his customers see his rage-a-holism in full bloom. This is behavior that suggests a personality trait that could be described as pathological narcissism.

I think if you read the entire post, you may come away with a different conclusion. The blog writer seems to be saying that he knew what he was doing was wrong (especially walking into the kitchen). And of course his actions were not viewed as justified by the chef, who also felt the writer was being dismissive and patronizing towards him. In any event, barging into a busy professional kitchen is never a good idea; but it does show that this writer thinks he can just act out however he wants (they teach that sort of entitlement at the Times?). Since when is a chef yelling at an employee an opportunity to insert yourself into his kitchen? The writer is lucky to be alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you read the entire post, you may come away with a different conclusion. The blog writer seems to be saying that he knew what he was doing was wrong (especially walking into the kitchen). And of course his actions were not viewed as justified by the chef, who also felt the writer was being dismissive and patronizing towards him. In any event, barging into a busy professional kitchen is never a good idea; but it does show that this writer thinks he can just act out however he wants (they teach that sort of entitlement at the Times?). Since when is a chef yelling at an employee an opportunity to insert yourself into his kitchen? The writer is lucky to be alive.

Yea, barging into a kitchen is grounds for execution. Please. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, barging into a kitchen is grounds for execution. Please. :lol:

I think if you read the entire post, you may come away with a different conclusion. The blog writer seems to be saying that he knew what he was doing was wrong (especially walking into the kitchen). And of course his actions were not viewed as justified by the chef, who also felt the writer was being dismissive and patronizing towards him. In any event, barging into a busy professional kitchen is never a good idea; but it does show that this writer thinks he can just act out however he wants (they teach that sort of entitlement at the Times?). Since when is a chef yelling at an employee an opportunity to insert yourself into his kitchen? The writer is lucky to be alive.

Obviously poetic license. I am not advocating violence. Although as previously mentioned, a kitchen can be a dangerous place, where anyone can accidentally slip and fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The chef's behavior lands him in the "dick" category, as far as I am concerned.

I'm actually more troubled by the "critics" actions, however. Did his position at the Times somehow embolden his actions? Was he so appalled by the display that he thought, "Well I'll show him"

Honestly, I think a detailed accounting of the evening in Diner's Journal without inserting himself in the situation would have had a far greater effect, IMHO. There would have been ZERO discussion about whether or not he should have inserted himself into the issue, much less the journalists ethics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you read the entire post, you may come away with a different conclusion. The blog writer seems to be saying that he knew what he was doing was wrong (especially walking into the kitchen). And of course his actions were not viewed as justified by the chef, who also felt the writer was being dismissive and patronizing towards him. In any event, barging into a busy professional kitchen is never a good idea; but it does show that this writer thinks he can just act out however he wants (they teach that sort of entitlement at the Times?). Since when is a chef yelling at an employee an opportunity to insert yourself into his kitchen? The writer is lucky to be alive.

Oh, please. First the blogger is unsure how far he got -- if at all -- into the kitchen, which may be a dangerous, but not a sacred place. Walking in may be stupid, but it's not necessarily "wrong" -- when there's a problem, you tend to go to wherever the problem is.

Second, I think it's the chef, far more that the writer, who thinks he can act out however he wants. It's the blogger's first time being thrown out, one gets the impression that he doesn't usually swagger around giving orders, whereas the chef comes off as whatever Zora said.

Third, any time there is grossly unprofessional behavior at a restaurant that disturbs the diner's dinner, a diner has the right to act to take action. Hey, at least he brought the problem to the owner's attention before going on line about it.

It wouldn't be my first inclination, but I can see circumstances where a chef (or anyone) is screwing up my big night out so badly, for such stupid reasons that I might suggest he shut the hell up, as well. Respect is a two-way thing, If the chef doesn't respect me and my party enough to act like an adult while I'm spending hundreds of dollars in his place, screw him.

I would, by the way, also expect to get thrown out. And to report it here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chef=dick. Blogger=huge dbag. /thread

Well, OK, then. I know that many of you consider me a "shill" for Corduroy, even though Dame Edna and I don't get any freebies (aside from a glass of wine or three), which is why I don't post all (or any of) my meals here. Still. In his new location, Tom Power has an open kitchen. So, if he feels like yelling at the help, that would be heard in the immediate vacinity of the main dining room. For anyone who has eaten there, this would seem to be such an abberation that 911 should be called. Further, when there was a country-wide immigration march a few years ago, here in DC some restaurants closed down because they couldn't staff a complete shift. Corduroy remained open because the staff showed up. I'm just sayin'. In no way could Tom Power be confused with Gordon Ramsey, except that I could show up at the bar at Corduroy, without a reservation, and expect to receive the wonderful food that always comes out of that kitchen. There are ways to operate, and there are ways to operate. I choose to throw my restaurant $$$ at people who understand both the difference and the food. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“It doesn’t work when you say calmly, ‘Can you please not do that again?’ You don’t see that from coaches on the sideline of a big game, and Saturday-night service is a big game.”

From that article. If the chef thinks that speaking calmly "doesn't work" then he has problems. He has a giant ego that isn't matched by his business sense. His restaurant has only been open two years and has already had one name change. I doubt the restaurant will be there in a year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, Abbie was a dosed-up buffoon trying to horn in on the spotlight, and did it to an artist who had very little use for the hippy-dippy aesthetic. Ron Lieber was responding to an abusive situation.

It's one thing to be an a**hole to your employees behind closed doors. It takes a special kind of a**hole to pull that in an open kitchen on front of one's customers, some of whom might not want to listen to the chef froth at the mouth while they eat his expensive cuisine. As for telling the Maitre 'd or server, does the diner have any confidence in a situation like that that the staff can successfully challenge the owner/chef?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From that article. If the chef thinks that speaking calmly "doesn't work" then he has problems. He has a giant ego that isn't matched by his business sense. His restaurant has only been open two years and has already had one name change. I doubt the restaurant will be there in a year.

I think that both parties are in the wrong here, but to be clear, the name change was due to a copyright claim on "Forge", nothing else. That said, I dined at Forge about a month after it first opened and wasn't terribly impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you read the entire post, you may come away with a different conclusion. The blog writer seems to be saying that he knew what he was doing was wrong (especially walking into the kitchen). And of course his actions were not viewed as justified by the chef, who also felt the writer was being dismissive and patronizing towards him. In any event, barging into a busy professional kitchen is never a good idea; but it does show that this writer thinks he can just act out however he wants (they teach that sort of entitlement at the Times?). Since when is a chef yelling at an employee an opportunity to insert yourself into his kitchen? The writer is lucky to be alive.

UNLESS YOU OWN THE PLACE, ADDRESS THE ISSUE FROM YOUR TABLE OR FRONT DOOR.

NO ONE SHOULD EVER WALK INTO THE KITCHEN DURING SERVING HOURS!!! DANGEROUS AND INAPPROPRIATE!!!

It is always best to talk to the management or just leave the establisment (any kind of business). If the establisment doesn't repect you: don't patronize them or write negatively about it.

two hot headed guys: a lot of free publicity for Fargione.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...Virbila felt violated..."

I am not sure who should feel more violated here--the critic or the restaurant which was visited by the critic on its ninth night of service.

I actually believe that it is the public (and its trust) which is most violated when they are repeatedly lied to in regards to a critic's anonymity when in reality that critic's identity is well known to an elite group of restaurant insiders and the pretense of anonymity is only maintained among the "lesser" or newer restaurateurs.

The whole idea of a critic's anonymity is as dishonest as it is farcical--and in reality it guarantees that the very thing it purports to avoid (a skewed or distorted picture of a restaurant) actually occurs, just to the advantage of the already advantaged.

And the truth is, I have always gotten the impression that critics just get off on the sneakiness and the secretiveness and the disguises--almost fetishistically--and the imagined power it gives them much much more so than it serves any practical purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole idea of a critic's anonymity is as dishonest as it is farcical

Can't we just say that it's perhaps "outdated?" And really only by a few years?

I've said for awhile now that all it takes is one prick with a cell phone, and you're done for. Anonymity has its advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. One thing's for sure: it's a very tenuous thing to be pinning a career on nowadays.

Not that I consider myself a critic per se, but the way I treat this has remained unchanged over the years: I don't go out of my way to make myself known, but once I am, I don't care. What other realistic choice is there?

Also, the "farce" thing goes both ways. If a restaurant recognizes me, and acts like it doesn't, I think I'm aware of it 9 out of 10 times - I'd bet the majority of major critics can say the same thing.

Cheers,

Rocks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, the "farce" thing goes both ways. If a restaurant recognizes me, and acts like it doesn't, I think I'm aware of it 9 out of 10 times - I'd bet the majority of major critics can say the same thing.

Cheers,

Rocks

It's not about you and the restaurant.

The farce I described is that between the critic (a professional journalist)--who exactly like you does know exactly at which restaurants he or she is known and recognized--and the public to which the actual degree of his anonymity is misrepresented and the disparities that pretense creates.

Regardless of any other argument regarding this subject, this pretense is dishonesty, plain and simple--and not unique in the modern critic's repertoire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not about you and the restaurant.

The farce I described is that between the critic (a professional journalist)--who exactly like you does know exactly at which restaurants he or she is known and recognized--and the public to which the actual degree of his anonymity is misrepresented and the disparities that pretense creates.

Regardless of any other argument regarding this subject, this pretense is dishonesty, plain and simple--and not unique in the modern critic's repertoire.

Does this dishonesty apply equally to Todd and Tom? Please don't take offense at this question, because my intent is not to cause anger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does this dishonesty apply equally to Todd and Tom? Please don't take offense at this question, because my intent is not to cause anger.

Oh. No, no, I was talking about Virbila.

I mean, I'm sure that none of the local critics would ever do something so unprofessional, disruptive and violatory as to visit a restaurant on its ninth day of service.

And the over the top theatricality and spy-thriller, cloak-and-dagger role play inherent in titillating readers with stories of "[from the LA Times] routinely hav[ing] booked their reservations under other names, carried credit cards bearing pseudonyms and occasionally even worn disguises" doesn't even remotely apply to any of the critics here.

That would just be sneaky and creepy.

Anyway, it's not like that Jason Bourne meets James Bond meets George Smiley schtick would ever play in a market as sophisticated and worldly as DC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't we just say that it's perhaps "outdated?" And really only by a few years?

I've said for awhile now that all it takes is one prick with a cell phone, and you're done for. Anonymity has its advantages, but it also has its disadvantages. One thing's for sure: it's a very tenuous thing to be pinning a career on nowadays.

Not that I consider myself a critic per se, but the way I treat this has remained unchanged over the years: I don't go out of my way to make myself known, but once I am, I don't care. What other realistic choice is there?

Also, the "farce" thing goes both ways. If a restaurant recognizes me, and acts like it doesn't, I think I'm aware of it 9 out of 10 times - I'd bet the majority of major critics can say the same thing.

Cheers,

Rocks

I know Marc well

He is a very talented chef and the son of the Grandfather of American Food Larry Forgione.

Last I saw him we were in Vail two years ago for the food and wine festival and people there got a kick out of both of our last names as they are very similar.

He is a very focused and direct guy, but never once I saw him losing it in or out the professional environment

I don't know if what he did was right or wrong, I was not there, but for sure in my kitchen I do not like unexpected or unannounced visits in the middle of service as both distracting and rude

I would never throw anyone out or get as loud as he did, but for sure I would set forth rules and regulations to be enforced by my staff.

Sometimes a little communication solves and prevents many things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UNLESS YOU OWN THE PLACE, ADDRESS THE ISSUE FROM YOUR TABLE OR FRONT DOOR.

NO ONE SHOULD EVER WALK INTO THE KITCHEN DURING SERVING HOURS!!! DANGEROUS AND INAPPROPRIATE!!!

It is always best to talk to the management or just leave the establisment (any kind of business). If the establisment doesn't repect you: don't patronize them or write negatively about it.

two hot headed guys: a lot of free publicity for Fargione.

What you meant is FORGIONE and not FARGIONE

Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, I'm sure that none of the local critics would ever do something so unprofessional, disruptive and violatory as to visit a restaurant on its ninth day of service.

And the over the top theatricality and spy-thriller, cloak-and-dagger role play inherent in titillating readers with stories of "[from the LA Times] routinely hav[ing] booked their reservations under other names, carried credit cards bearing pseudonyms and occasionally even worn disguises" doesn't even remotely apply to any of the critics here.

I also believe that both

1) the notion of waiting for a restaurant to "settle in" before visiting (nobody does anymore), and

2) (speaking as someone who has "Don"ned a fedora before) the whole cloak-and-dagger spiel

have changed, and I mean they've changed in the past couple of years. Not five years ago, but just in the past couple of years. It's obvious that you're trying to catalyze (*) disruption of an existing system, but couldn't someone also rebut that you're doing so out of rational self-interest, and therefore being just as disingenuous?

When you had one small restaurant and were earning rave reviews from our city's one major critic, where was the venom then?

---

* A plague is mentioned in Iliad I (Steevens) and by Lydgate, iii. 4876 (Malone), but it is doubtful whether Shakes Spear had either in mind. There may be a quibble on "cattle-ize." (**)

** [sorry, am reading Oxford edition of Troilus and Cressida. Rules have changed, however, and feel no need to cite publication data, page number, or anything else for that matter. ed.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also believe that both

1) the notion of waiting for a restaurant to "settle in" before visiting (nobody does anymore), and

2) (speaking as someone who has "Don"ned a fedora before) the whole cloak-and-dagger spiel

have changed, and I mean they've changed in the past couple of years. Not five years ago, but just in the past couple of years. It's obvious that you're trying to catalyze (*) disruption of an existing system, but couldn't someone also rebut that you're doing so out of rational self-interest, and therefore being just as disingenuous?

When you had one small restaurant and were earning rave reviews from our city's one major critic, where was the venom then?

---

* A plague is mentioned in Iliad I (Steevens) and by Lydgate, iii. 4876 (Malone), but it is doubtful whether Shakes Spear had either in mind. There may be a quibble on "cattle-ize." (**)

** [sorry, am reading Oxford edition of Troilus and Cressida. Rules have changed, however, and feel no need to cite publication data, page number, or anything else for that matter. ed.]

Jesus, this thread has gotten way too cerebral for me to even follow. I feel stupid. You damned educated people... :)

The owners of the restaurant have every right to refuse service to anyone at any time. They chose a food critic. Whatever happens afterwards for them (positive or negative) is the direct result of their decision. God bless them for having the g(n)uts to make such a gut (ball)sy decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you had one small restaurant and were earning rave reviews from our city's one major critic, where was the venom then?

Not really interested in answering tit-for-tat, nor am I sure of your point, but the initial Washington Post review on Ray's came out in late June of 2003. The eGullet thread on Ray's The Steaks was started in March of 2004.

Does your curiosity extend to what I was doing before then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...