Restaurant reviewer busted

"ImStillMags" wrote

Steve B seems to think that he holds all the answers. Obviously he's
unfamiliar with the restaurant business from any angle but the
customer's seat.

reply: Yet I am not so vain as some people who are or who have been in the
restaurant business, yet have no clue. Anyone can be "in the restaurant
business". Ever watch Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares? Prime example. There
are a lot of people who should have never gotten into the restaurant
business, or who are in it, and don't belong there. Some of them even post
(spew) here.

Steve
 
?
"Dave Smith" wrote
....


If I ever retire, I'll probably do the same, if nothing else, it will help
preserve my wife's sanity. Right now, I have it too good at work so no
plans to ever 100% quit. Few people understand, but I actually like going
to work.
 
Boron Elgar wrote in
news:[email protected]:



Seems very fitting that I changed my .sig this morning.........


--
Peter Lucas
Hobart
Tasmania

First Law of Leftist Debate.......
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.
 
On Sat, 8 Jan 2011 00:15:43 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:


I have a friend who grayed at age 19, so maybe he should have asked
for a senior discount too!

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.
 
On 30/12/2010 10:40 PM, Steve B wrote:


It is not like they are qualified in the food business. They are
journalists first. Who's to say that they have any experience with the
foods they will be trying. They may be able to say if the dish or not,
but perhaps not be able to compare it with the same dishes in other
restaurants.
 
On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 14:37:54 -0500, blake murphy
wrote:

First Amendment isn't the point. The point is that LA is full of
great restaurants, so why waste time on one that doesn't want to be
reviewed?

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.
 
On 1/3/2011 3:19 PM, blake murphy wrote:

Is there going to be something new posted in this thread, or just the
same arguments back and forth? If it's just all the same, I'm going to
killfile it and request that if something interesting comes up, please
modify the subject in some way so I don't miss it.

thankyouverymuch
 
Dan Abel wrote:






I was using the phrase "doctorate in music" to include both a Ph.D
in music, or a D.Mus. Perhaps that's not the right terminology,
but in any case, such persons can call themselves doctors.

Steve
 
Dave wrote:


Maybe if I get really, really bored I will! But until then I prefer to
believe that the newspaper was lying about its policy, and that Virbila had
every intention of writing a review that night.

Bob
 
On Mon, 3 Jan 2011 14:40:52 -0500, blake murphy
wrote:

Hopefully not belaboring a point - but there are so many restaurants
out there that are literally *begging* for a review (publicity), it
doesn't make any sense to waste time reviewing one that doesn't want
to be reviewed. If enough requests are made a simple statement in the
column about the restaurant not wanting a review and the newspaper
honoring the request can speak volumes about the restaurant. Besides,
there are other places people can go for peer reviews like Chowhound
and Yelp.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.
 
Steve Pope wrote:


What? We don't need researchers?
There is a saying in the military- "There are no atheists in foxholes"
Get back to us about how evil all medicine is when you come down with
something that scares the bejesus outta you. Or you hope you'll survive
long enough to see your grandchildren marry. You'll probably hope there
is someone out there who will treat you, perhaps using cutting edge
treatments that required smart researchers.
But we've gone through all this before when you've spouted what I
consider to be irrational nuggets about healthcare.
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 13:18:53 -0500, Dave Smith
wrote:


The behavior of *any* reviewer other than S. Irene Virbila is
irrelevant to this story. And, of course, if you looked around and
read about Virbila, you'd see that she is regarded as tough, but quite
fair and that Ellis' statement about her was overblown.

No one can defend every single live and walking food critic - that
would be an untenable position as it would be to defend ever single
restauranteur, but to say that there some of each who are not
professional has no bearing on this story. We have Ellis and we have
Virbila involved in this. No one else. No generalizations about them
or beyond them have bearing.

Anyone who has ever logged onto Amazon knows there are lunatics who
lurk in the star fields. Anyone who has ever read Usenet knows the
same. That is why having professionals handle such feedback and
evaluation is preferable. It keeps the background static to a minimum.
I do not defend online reviews as anything other than toys or hints.

Interactive is really cute on American Idol and DWTS, but in real life
it does not work too well.. There is no statistical dependability to
these public online rating systems.


No, she was a customer. She has stated that she was not there to
review. And even if she were, she is still a customer, as are those
with her.

I am as lefty as they come, but darlin', this is capitalism, and if
you take offense at anyone doing a job because profit might be made
somewhere along the line, you have no where on God's Green Earth to
go...even Cuba will start to stink to you.

I have clients who say that WalMart accounts for 40% of their sales
and Target another huge chunk. I assure you, they don't go about
badmouthing either one in public. What they say in meetings or over
lunch is different, but this being a food group, we all know on which
side our bread is buttered.

Ellis had every right not to serve Virbila. He had no right to take
her picture and publish it all over and cause a stink. There is a very
big difference.


Wacko, I believe is the more correct spelling.

Frankly, I do not care what opinions you hold about anything
whatsoever, but the minute you state something as fact and there is no
supporting evidence, you cross a line into deep bullshit.

Boron
 
Dan Abel wrote:




That sounds MUCH more like a customer's online review than a
professional reviewer. Sites that allow the public to post reviews
are exceptionally suspect.

gloria p
 
On Fri, 31 Dec 2010 09:51:36 -0800 in rec.food.cooking, sf
wrote,

Because the restaurateur already had a grudge against her, for allegedly
giving an allegedly unjustified nasty review to a restaurant operated by
a friend of his. End of story.
 
On Sat, 01 Jan 2011 17:01:40 -0500, Dave Smith
wrote:


Would you please post the recipe, Dave? I have one I love, but
chicken and coconut milk is a favorite for me so I'd like to see
others. Don't forget it's loaded with saturated fat, so be careful
with that coconut milk! A little goes a long way. I use 1/2 of
what's called for or one small can and extend it with chicken broth.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.
 
On 04/01/2011 11:22 AM, sf wrote:



The expensive vet was treating my Lab for a heart murmur. It was
costing me close to $100 a month for Digoxin, plus the cost of the
weekly visits. He wanted to send the dog to a major veterinary centre
for EKG which was going to cots over $1,000. I asked if it would do any
good. No, but it would help him monitor the medication.
 
Boron Elgar wrote:



That's obscene.




I don't think I have ever experienced either of those symptoms from the
most excellent meal, that would be too weird, but I do think I might get
hives from spending a month's worth of grocery expense on one dinner.


gloria p
 
Back
Top