Restaurant reviewer busted

[BlueGilling]

In article ,
Ema Nymton wrote:


I can't either. We have a place not far from us. We've never been
there, and I can't imagine us going. It's in a remodeled laundry! They
have two menus, each US$240 per person:

http://www.frenchlaundry.com/

One is vegetarian. There are usually some extra cost options, like
shaved white truffles. I have looked at the 100+ page wine list. They
have a few selections in five figures!

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]

[I am a bag of sandwiches]

On 31/12/2010 12:21 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:



Not quite the same thing. LA about 2500 miles from here. I don't get the
LA times. I could go onlione nad search for restaurant reviews for
restaurants I am not likely ever to go to. So I am not familiar with
this particular reviewer's style. I have seen other restaurant reviews
and some of them were just plain nasty, and I can appreciate the
manager's comment about how her review of his partners other restaurant
had been unnecessarily cruel.


Customer reviews may be of more value to some people, but even those can
be nasty. I read a number of reviews of my son's restaurant. Some were
downright silly, like a coupe about the bad service on its opening day.
Of course they had bad service on opening day. Some said the food was
good while others said it sucked. It was the same for the beers they
brew on location. Some people loved them and some said they were awful.



She wasn't really a customer. She was pretending to be a customer, and
she was going to use the experience to write a review that would be
interesting enough to attract readers in order to sell newspapers so
that the publisher could make money selling ad space.




Tough but fair accoroding to restauranteurs? Yeah, lik any
restauranteur is about to say something nasty about a restaurant critic
while she is still in a position to destroy some of his businsess.




Like I said.... why would I bother to read restaurant reviews from LAS.
Never the less, I am still amazed at the power of the underdog to get
public support, even if they are wrong. Waco?

[ollysmum]

On Wed, 05 Jan 2011 09:03:04 +0200, ChattyCathy
wrote:


I can wait some... depending on how sincere the apologetic boot
scraping, how good the comped 2nis, and the bar maid's chest. lol

[Mimi-????????????- ??????????????]

On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 14:13:32 -0500, Goomba
wrote:


You can bet the house that the mick never pays.

[Yuupp!]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 09:09:54 -0500, Boron Elgar wrote:




your pal,
blake

[Twilight News]

On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 14:52:27 -0800 in rec.food.cooking, sf
wrote,

I wonder what kind of service I might get if I said "Colonel Sanders"

[larson4boys]

"ImStillMags" wrote in message
news:bddc26d3-f051-4578-bb88-bcc132453479@l34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 30, 11:42 am, "Steve B" wrote:

I have agreed and disagreed with reviewers also. My statement was
more to the way the reviewer was treated.

What? She was treated for what she was. A restaurant HAS THE RIGHT TO
REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE. That sign is clearly posted.

Steve

[Christie Copyright.]

sf wrote:


How about if you called yourself Doctor Pepper -- and made the reservation
at a Cheesecake Factory?

Bob

[1.10101E+13]

Gloria wrote:


Don't forget that the name "Ed Pawlowski" is middling-prestigious in some
Pennsylvania areas!

When I book restaurant reservations online I use the pseudonym "James Bond."

Bob

[dodgeneonman]

In article ,
Melba's Jammin' wrote:


And not just "some people". Some entire institutions. My first real
job out of school was with the US government. For my first evaluation,
I received a "satisfactory", which was the middle rating out of five. I
thought that was reasonable, as I was pretty green. It wasn't until
several months later that I found out that "satisfactory" meant
"unsatisfactory", and that they didn't keep people who were rated
"satisfactory"!


I used to work for the US Army, as a civilian (not the previous job). I
worked with an excellent Captain. The Army had too many officers, due
to Vietnam. They had an "up or out" deal. When it was time for
promotion, he didn't get promoted, so they fired him, after ten years of
honorable service. The military had a numerical rating system, with
ranges for different levels. Everybody got almost 100, though, no
matter how poor their performance was. This poor guy had received *one*
poor rating in his ten years. Since others had *no* poor ratings, they
got promoted. The system made some kind of sense. There were too many
Captains. You don't need so many people at the next higher level, so
you can't promote them all. If you keep the ones you don't promote,
then there is no room for promotion into Captain from below.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
[email protected]