Wine info from the Flying Fish
 

Hello everyone. I have followed the turmoil that has taken place here ever since the thread regarding the Flying Fish Restaurant in Seattle was posted.

I was friends with a priest once who was quite an interesting fellow. Educated at Oxford. Suddenly, the other night, a story he related over dinner came to mind. He said back in the days of old, men would get into heated arguments while having their nightly ale over how many teeth there were in a horses mouth. They would come to blows over the disagreement. And all they had to do was go outside, open up the horses mouths and count the number of teeth they had.

Somehow that story came back to me in relationship to the cost of wine at the Flying Fish.

I went onto Google and looked up the Flying Fish website. I called the Flying Fish and asked to speak to Brian Huse, the wine manager. He immediately came on the line. A very pleasant fellow from New Zealand. Certainly seems to know his business and his love for his work is obvious. Had an interesting and informative talk with him.
Long story short, he was dismayed to hear that any customer of the restaurant could not find bottles of wine in the $20.00 or $30.00 bracket. Yes, there wine inventory changes from time to time but he stated they always offer several bottles of wine in those price catagories. Not once have they not had bottles of wine in the $20.00 through $39.00 range.

Let me say btw, I have not been in Seattle for about 10 years. I don't even know if the Flying Fish Restaurant exsisted 10 years ago. I have never been to this restaurant and I certainly don't have any financial or personal interest in it.

But I do have an interest that information presented on Fodor's is as accurate as possible. As I stated on another post, opinions are opinions such as "we paid $35.00 for a bottle of their wine and we did not enjoy it" or "we feel their markup on their wine is to high. That is an opinion. A fact is "they did not have any wine avaialble in the $20 or $30 bracket". Now I can visualize a group of people busy conversing, barely scanning the wine menu and not seeing wine in the price catagory they were looking for. I can also imagine some employee having a bad attitude. Imagine that has happened to all of us at one time or another.

Patrick however felt that he needed to post as he is familar with the restaurant and consequently their wine menu. He attempted to correct the the original posters "facts" And it has been all downhill since then.

So out of curiosity and also to get some good straight answers I called the restaurant, thanks to remember the "how many teeth in a horses mouth" story.

This is the message in the email I received from Brian Huse at the Flying Fish Restaurant on 11-12-05 at 12:19am

Thank you so much for your phone call last night. I am sorry that I didn't have more time to talk to you, as we were very busy, but I certainly appreciate your concern and the fact you took the time to let me know of the erreneous information that was being spread about our wine list.

According to my caculations we have a total of 48 wines that sell for between 20 and 30 dollars a bottle (32 on the main list and 16 that we serve by both the glass and the bottle).

I have also attached a copy of our wine list. I hope this helps in a small part to vindicate your friend. I certainly appreciate immensely the fact that both you and he are so willing to come to Flying Fish defense.

If there is anything else I can do to help, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards, Brian

Brian Hume
Manager
Flying Fish
206-728-8595

Now by my calculations (going through the wine list) they offer 17 bottles in the $20.00 range and 16 by the bottle or the glass (the glass price is from $6.75 to $9.95). They offer 19 bottles in the $30.00 range and 1 by the bottle or glass (glass is $9.95).

Patrick has asked me to post this information for him, as he is banned from Fodors at this time.

Peter on 11-10-05 advised Patrick "I'd be happy to see you post your evidence".

In that Patrick has been banned he obviously cannot do that. Patrick emailed the message that I received from the restaurant along with the wine list to Fodors so Peter and Fodors has the evidence. As Patrick advised Peter today via email regarding posting the information on Fodor's "Any idae how I do that, since you've banned me from doing so??"

I have posted this information to clear up any confusion and questions some of you have had.

I was happy to do it for Patrick since he, at this point, obviously cannot.

I believe, or certainly hope, that the majority of us on Fodor's would like to think that facts stated on Fodor's (versus opinions) are as accurate as possible. I would like to believe the management of Fodors would desire this also.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Well, Thank you LoveItaly for doing this for Patrick and for Fodorville.
I like the horses teeth story :D

Here is hoping that this will do the trick, Patrick can get back to Fodoring and we can get on with advising and consenting ((F))

It is one thing to refute or disagree with posters about their travel-related views in this board.

But to actually obtain and post, verbatim, a message from a restaurant owner or employee aimed at possible discrediting another poster's review is going overboard and unethical.

This is a disgrace to the forum and what it stands for!

Interesting that you would look at it from that point of view. Is it unimportant that the restaurant might fear losing customers because of someone's mistake. This is not contesting someone's "view" or opinion. It is clarifying a fact which was mistakenly reported. This happens on a daily basis on these forums, but has never been a major issue before now.

bill boy
did you see the part where Peter advised Patrick "I'd be happy to see you post your evidence".?
But Patrick is unable to post.
LoveItaly did it for him.
I don't think this is to "discredit " another posters opinion at all, but to correct a mistake.
And I believe Brain Hume knew he was going to be quoted, that was sort of the point.

I believe another poster in the original Seattle post agreed with the OP that the restaurant had a scarcity of reasonably priced wines.

The thing that left a bad taste in my mouth and that I think was unprecedented was the contacting of the restaurant. The OP looked to me to be completely in good faith and not malicious in the review of the restaurant. If people feel like they can't be honest (or even if he was a couple dollars off on the wine) on this board then there is no point in having it.

Again, many people probably share this viewpoint yet feel that the lack of warning to Patrick was ridiculous. I think we can disagree about whether the contacting of the restaurant was beyond the pale, yet agree that the no-warning ban of Patrick was over the line.

Interesting that you would look at this as a "major issue", especially, as you stated, it happens here at a daily basis.

AFAIC, personal reviews and point of views on travel-related subjects can be refuted and disagreed with by other members. But, to have a verbatim third party posting on behalf of one refuting member is an overkill and inappropriate.

How would you feel about posting a review of a restaurant or a tourist destination with other posters ready to pounce on you with letters from restaurant owners or museum directors?

This post is both creepy and warped!

What on earth would possess a person to go to such elaborate lengths just so they can call a poster on a travel board a liar!?

Actually, it's for quite the opposite reason. It's so that Patrick can clear his name. It is now apparent that the original poster was mistaken. Nobody has ever suggested that the OP intentionally gave bad information. But the fact remains that it was not an accurate account of the restaurant's wine list.

bill_boy, it wouldn't be big deal if Patrick hadn't been banned because of it. You continue to miss the point. "Reviews" and "points of view" are quite subjective and it's quite acceptable to disagree. However, when something is presented as a fact, if you know that "fact" to be incorrect, then I believe you have an responsibility to offer a correction.

As an example, many posters continue to recommend a restaurant in Old Town San Diego called the Casa de Bandini. This restaurant no longer exists, although it will reopen in a completely different part of town. To follow your argument, I should stop letting people know that it's not there any more and just let people show up and wonder where it is. After all, it's just an opinion that it's a good place to go.

Those of us who post here are responsible for the content, and not just for trying to be collegial.

You seem definite with your notion that the Flying Fish wine issue was ther reason patrick was banned. Have you confirmed this?

Just the same, I really don't care about Patrick or anybody being banned. But to have letters from restaurant owners to be posted here is, as somebody alluded, both creepy and weird.

BTW, you'd better have documentations ready to support your future reviews of restaurants on this board.

If the way that the post in question was worded was to the effect that the original poster must have been mistaken, that would be one thing. However, Patrick's post stated something to the effect that he contacted the restaurant b/c the OP's account sounded fishy (read: dishonest). I read the OP and did not think that at all. The OP will probably never come back to Fodors b/c of the whole contacting the restaurant episode- I wouldn't either. It's clear that the editors want this forum to have broad appeal (which equals more advertising dollars). Right or wrong, not allowing good faith posters to feel attacked or signalled out accomplishes this end.

If Patrick's response to the original post wasn't so CSI- I'm going to catch the perpetrator-ish, then I don't think the subsequent events would have occurred.

Actually, the restaurant was contacted only because Peter Kay asked Patrick to substantiate his claim with, for instance, the actual wine list. and that's what happened.

I assume Peter Kay is the Fodors editor. Couldn't you understand the fact that PeterKay and patrick must somehow be communicating with each other (by phone of private email) and that such "evidence" should have been emailed or faxed to Peter Kay?

BTW, I'm bailing out of this thread as I am already embarrased enough being a part of this creepy and weird post. I trust that Peter will (and should) pull this out.

You may keep disagreeing with me all you want.

It was emailed to Peter.

bill boy, like you, I have been surprised and somewhat dumbfounded at the lengths some people have gone recently on this and other boards to either prove themselves right, or others wrong. Like you, I've thought, how weird is this?? We're all anonymous user names on an internet travel board.

Then I watch my teenage kids. And I soon realize that Fodor's is very much like the same community they have.... except we're all a bit older, and hopefully wiser. So don't judge. This isn't the only community we have!

The point is, we are talking about a FACT, NOT an opinion. People come to this board to get BOTH. Opinions are just that, opinions..you say tomato, I say to-mah-to. What if someone posts you take the "A" bus to get to "X" in San Francisco..and maybe in their mind that's the proper bus but in fact the "A" bus goes to "Y" and another poster KNOWS that. The person asking about the bus is from New York and has never set foot in SF, so the erroneous post should NOT be corrected so we can never disagree because we might offend and the poor guy from New York ends up on the wrong bus and ends up in Golden Gate Park instead of Union Square? The guy asking about the bus is asking for a FACT, not an opinion. Should they not correct that mis-statement? There are many posts about restaurants on this forum and some like, some don't like, some get good service, some say service stinks. These are subjective evaluations, and none are wrong, and it's up to the person seeking the information to sift through the varying opinions and decide if they want to go to that particular place. The OP on the Whine post stated as fact something that was incorrect and I don't see any harm in correcting it. Frankly, as I posted on the Whine thread, I did not get the feeling that the OP was a "wilting violet" or was at all intimidated by Patrick. Creepy indeed. Beyond the pale? Sheesh!!!!

I don't understand why this is *creepy and weird*. If I were the owner of the restaurant, I'd be very pleased that the error was corrected and that I was getting this good advertising for free to such a large group of potential clients.

If someone had posted (innocently but incorrectly) that a certain hotel in Rome did not offer rooms less than $300 per night and in fact the most expensive room was $200 a night, would you find it creepy & weird if someone found the correct info and posted it?

I think it's just sensible. Accurate information and personal experience is the point and purpose of this site.

beachbum,

I wanted to be out of this creepy thread, but you dragged me in. You can disagree or agree with my posts. As I have not told otherswhat to do or not do, YOU most definitely do not tell me what to do! Hence, YOU do not tell me not to judge!

What is everyone so offended about? Someone posted incorrect information about a restaurant, and in fact based a very bad review of this restaurant on this information. Someone else went to the source to find out if it was true, and upon finding the orignial poster was wrong, is letting other travelers know something about a restaurant that is very popular with tourists. People think this is creepy??? Should no one question me if I say something similarly incorrect, such as, all the rooms in the Seattle Hyatt cost $900, so they are a rip-off to be avoided?

I hope that other posters ALWAYS post when they see facts that are incorrect and may affect someone's vacation decisions.

LoveItaly: Boy oh boy..and you seem like such a nice person and now look what you have gone and done!!!!! SHAME!!!! :D

bill boy, let me rephrase... We all judge; can't help it really. But we do that based on our own realities. Regardless, your weirdness may well be someone (just as intelligent as you are) else's reality. Who's to say who's right or wrong, weird or not?

OK, beachbum. Since, unlike your life with your kids, my real life do not at all resemble what goes on at Fodors, then, I may consider that as your weirdness, since it is not within the realm of my reality.

I have no disagreement with that, then.

LOL bill boy, if the life of my teenagers is not within the realm of your reality, consider yourself lucky!! Just don't judge them weird. Take care.

LoveItaly, I know you have the best of intentions. You always do and I admire you for that. And I think Patrick did as well, in his own focused way.

But is there any chance at all, good intentions not withstanding, that the person who went to that restaurant and kindly provided us this review, did in fact have the experience that he said he did? Could there been some chance that <i>he</i> never actually got to see this full wine list that's being argued about?

Say, if a particular waiter was looking for a bigger tip on a pricier wine, knowing that many people do not want to embarrass themselves by become argumentative in front of friends, associates or clients, nor do many wish to appear cheap. I noticed that their service was not well thought of by many, even in that thread. Personally, I've seen a short list of wine specials brought out before, but usually in addition to the main house list.

If there's some chance of something like that, then it may have actually not been such a &quot;mistake&quot;. And of course, being that it was the first time there for the OP, how would he know if some silly employee thing like that was going on? I mean, it's true that overall, it's not what's <i>supposed</i> to happen and therefore is &quot;wrong&quot;. But it's still possible that it too could be the experience of another diner should the encounter whatever force fed this poster bad info.

A lot of times, I write these sorts of reviews off to not letting facts get in the way of a good story. But on that thread, the OP seemed very clear, concise and didn't look for fault everywhere, but was very specific. It seemed like a valid and legitimate issues for him, even if it wasn't the experience of others. I can't help thinking that maybe there's a reason it wasn't the same experience as that of others. And I did think that the guy deserved to be treated seriously, as he seemed to be willing and able to hold up his end of that civil conversation. And yet, it didn't seem to be going that civilly. Maybe I'm just being naive, I don't know.

I do though think that Patrick may have meant better than it sounded. These misunderstandings have happened with him before. A lot, actually. So maybe he's not argumentative, maybe he's just misunderstood at a somewhat higher percentage than most (never a bad time to take the opportunity to improve communication skills) Either way, as I said before, he does go way out of his way to get information to people and it's good info AND it's always an entertaining read. That should be taken into account.

But I still think that it's beyond ironic that a <i>book</i> publisher is so quick to ban speech and speakers.

Actually some good points Clifton. On that note, I'm going to take two asprin and check back in in the morning.

Just a thought, not weighing in on any &quot;side&quot; here :)
Many posts have made mention of the subscribers agreement and conduct on the boards, so I went and read it. What caught my eye was the talk of ALL material here being covered under copyright and that the transmittal of it is prohibited, along with other things of course regarding use of material. Perhaps Patrick's banning stems not from tone of posts or particular statements, but from the simple fact that he sent the thread to the restaurant. Used it for the &quot;wrong&quot; reasons, for lack of a better term, thus violating the agreement. I may be way off base, but just thought I would toss it out. Although speculation on the &quot;why&quot; his banning took place is somewhat useless, as I believe the only parties to attest to that truthfully are at Fodor's, perhaps Fodor's took their copyright rules very seriously in this case. Just a thought....

I wasn't going to say a word. And I didn't last night, but I am so bothered that I must.

It seems that it is necessary to discredit the integrity of one poster in order to regain the integrity of another. Enough already. This is becoming truly disgusting.

I would be very, very leary to post my experiences for fear that someone would go through such lengths to undermine my experience.

Fact? Opinion? Either one is criticized here. Life is not stagnant and by the way, it is completely too short. Let it go and move on. Please.

...&quot;regain&quot; is a poor choice of words. I will replace it with the word &quot;uphold&quot;.

It's one thing when an internet board moderator tells somebody to provide evidence on a poster's esperience.

But when one actually goes through all the means to do it and even have somebody else on the board to do it with ....

For an adult-based name-only internet forum (at least I think that these people are adults), I agree with an earlier poster that this is indeed creepy.

Some posters' idea of ethics here is truly astonishing.

Why on EARTH would getting information directly from an establishment be a Bad Thing on a website devoted to information about restaurants and hotels?

The implication is that OP's information -- right or wrong as it may have been -- should have been allowed to stand unmodified to protect <i>his integrity??</i>

The whole point of this board is to share info, including corroborating it, updating it, or disputing it if one's own experience warrants. Can't imagine what ethical system forbids getting evidence to support an opinion.

&quot;No good deed goes unpunished.&quot;

DaShadow is tired. DaShadow is tired of Patrick threads. DaShadow wants Patrick back.

DaShadow thinks Patrick was witty when he said a post about a Flying Fish was &quot;fishy&quot;. DaShadow no longer gives a flying fish.

DaShadow lurks. DaShadow rarely posts,and those posts are often pulled, but DaShadow knows.

DaShadow is tired and is going to bed.

I like your point of view, DaShadow, and also your screen name. I am tired of this drama as well.

But, I am concerned that Peter Kay inserted himself into this community (and was welcomed, at least by some of us), created this huge controversy by banning Patrick, and now remains silent. I love to read this forum, and post here a few times a week. I always try to be courteous, but I hope that if my tone is sometimes misunderstood, I won't be banned. I just don't know anymore. Now, when a little dialogue with the powers that be woud be welcomed, they are silent.

Very well said, soccr!

My only &quot;clarification&quot; would be that I don't think the OP purposely gave incorrect info. And I don't mean that I think you thought so either, soccr. Just want to be very clear about it. As Clifton said, who knows what may have happened to cause him to have erroneous info. But that doesn't mean that that info shouldn't be corrected. I see nothing &quot;weird and creepy&quot; about correcting facts.

I think it's very touching that LoveItaly would go to so much trouble to correct what she sees as an injustice. Also, the whole point of her story about horse's teeth seems to be lost on many. Why waste time and energy arguing over something that you can easily verify?

As stw said, I think it's really too bad that this became a situation in which one person's integrity is being questioned in order to uphold that of another person. I have no doubt that the OP posted in good faith. Nor do I doubt that Patrick felt obligated to correct *facts*, not opinion, that he knew to be wrong. There's absolutely nothing wrong with either of those things. It's just a real shame that, somewhere along the line, this all got so twisted.

there's sure a whole lot to digest here. so patrick wanted to correct false information given by a poster and he posted an email from the restaurant with the correct information. that's a bad thing? why? i just read that complete thread and getting banned for it makes no sense at all. i'm no great fan of patrick and disagree with many of his comments especially about new york, but for the life of me i sure can't figure this one out.
what is clear is that the people who always attack patrick see it as a bad thing. why does that not surprise me? one of the funniest things is the female poster with an L name who says patrick deserved getting banned for breaking the rules (although she or no one else has explained what specific rule he broke) and then tells us that he should break more rules and repost under a different name. the way i see it is that the editor banned the poster patrick, not just the name patrick. so why would someone say he broke a rule and should be punished but should continue to break more rules and post again?

It is one thing to find actual verified information on the internet, or elsewhere, to support your point-of-view. It is a completely different thing to contact a restaurant, tell them there has been information about their wine list that is derogatory, and then they all of a sudden have a defensive point-of-view that refutes the post.

I'm not so quick to accept what the restaurant says as fact but more as &quot;after the fact&quot;.

Where could one possibly find more &quot;actual, verified information&quot; than with the restaurateur? The information about their wine list wasn't derogatory, it was incorrect, and the owner of the restaurant seemed fine with having it corrected. Wouldn't you, if you were he?

Patrick's original post says that he contacted the restaurant because they do not have their wine list posted on the internet, told them what the rub was, and they in turn responded to the criticism. We do not know when PalmPilot went to the restaurant and if it was as he stated. All we know is that the restaurant is now giving counter information to PalmPilots claim.

What would you do if you were the restaurant? The only true voice here IMO would be someone who went there and saw the wine list w/o availing the restaurant of any information. And then, if it were true that wines were cheaper then $40, all we would know is that AT THIS TIME, they have wines cheaper than $40.

tandoori girl, the information wasn't &quot;derogatory&quot; it was wrong. big difference. did you see the first post on this thread? there were 48 wines on the list under $30. someone posted on this well read website that there were none. why was it wrong for the restaurant or patrick to correct that mistake? some of you sure have misdirected priorities.

earl, you are a troll.