Wine info from the Flying Fish

Old Nov 12th, 2005, 09:17 PM
  #21  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
beachbum is offline  
Old Nov 12th, 2005, 09:26 PM
  #22  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,087
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
bill_boy is offline  
Old Nov 12th, 2005, 09:35 PM
  #23  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
beachbum is offline  
Old Nov 12th, 2005, 10:08 PM
  #24  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

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 he 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 "mistake". 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 supposed to happen and therefore is "wrong". 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 book publisher is so quick to ban speech and speakers.
Clifton is offline  
Old Nov 12th, 2005, 10:14 PM
  #25  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 37,415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually some good points Clifton. On that note, I'm going to take two asprin and check back in in the morning.
crefloors is offline  
Old Nov 12th, 2005, 10:30 PM
  #26  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a thought, not weighing in on any "side" 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 "wrong" 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 "why" 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....
Sherry is offline  
Old Nov 13th, 2005, 04:17 AM
  #27  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 20,199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.


seetheworld is offline  
Old Nov 13th, 2005, 04:36 AM
  #28  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 20,199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
..."regain" is a poor choice of words. I will replace it with the word "uphold".



seetheworld is offline  
Old Nov 13th, 2005, 05:25 AM
  #29  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
ezlivin is offline  
Old Nov 13th, 2005, 05:26 AM
  #30  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 his integrity??

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.
soccr is offline  
Old Nov 13th, 2005, 05:41 AM
  #31  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,936
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"No good deed goes unpunished."
OneWanderingJew is offline  
Old Nov 13th, 2005, 05:56 AM
  #32  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 "fishy". 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.
DaShadow is offline  
Old Nov 13th, 2005, 07:22 AM
  #33  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 16,653
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
Suki is offline  
Old Nov 13th, 2005, 07:38 AM
  #34  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 9,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Very well said, soccr!

My only "clarification" 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 "weird and creepy" 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.

CAPH52 is offline  
Old Nov 13th, 2005, 07:51 AM
  #35  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?
earl30 is offline  
Old Nov 13th, 2005, 07:54 AM
  #36  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 "after the fact".
Tandoori_Girl is offline  
Old Nov 13th, 2005, 07:59 AM
  #37  
hdm
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,150
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Where could one possibly find more "actual, verified information" 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?
hdm is offline  
Old Nov 13th, 2005, 08:05 AM
  #38  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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 is offline  
Old Nov 13th, 2005, 08:06 AM
  #39  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
tandoori girl, the information wasn't "derogatory" 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.
earl30 is offline  
Old Nov 13th, 2005, 08:09 AM
  #40  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
earl, you are a troll.
Tandoori_Girl is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -