On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 15:09:00 -0500, Dave Smith
wrote:
This doesn't really have to do with what the reviewer said about the
restaurant, though. It has to do with the behavior of the owner
towards the reviewer and her party.
I am not even offering judgment on whether the reviewer's insistence
on anonymity in her line of work is sensible or defensible or
necessary or logical. That doesn't matter either.
If the owner of the restaurant did not want the reviewer eating there
he could have discreetly asked her if she intended to review and if he
did not like her reply or even lack of one, he could have asked her to
leave and come back at some other time. It was soon after the opening
that she appeared, much earlier than she usually does to review, but
supposedly she was just casing the place casually. Quien sabe?
But under any circumstances there was no need to take a photo and
splash it all over the net. Stupid move and very unprofessional. THAT
would be a reason not to patronize the place.
Boron