Wine info from the Flying Fish
Nov 13th, 2005, 08:18 AM
#43
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am actually in the information business and go to great lengths to get accurate information, and I don't mean information to post on a chat board. The lengths people go to to refute information that reflects poorly on them is astounding. Much of it begins with lies. You and I disagree about the amount of confidence one puts in a 2nd hand source who is on the defensive.
Again, we don't know when PalmPilot went nor what the wine list said when he went. That's all I'm saying.
Again, we don't know when PalmPilot went nor what the wine list said when he went. That's all I'm saying.
Nov 13th, 2005, 08:41 AM
#44
<The OP will probably never come back to Fodors b/c of the whole contacting the restaurant episode- I wouldn't either.>
BTW the OP is still participating on Fodor's, apparently no worse for wear.
BTW the OP is still participating on Fodor's, apparently no worse for wear.
Nov 13th, 2005, 08:54 AM
#45
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 10,965
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Restaurants often post a dinner menu with the disclaimer that it is “typical.” Flying Fish could do the same with its wine list and bring an end to the brouhaha.
When I was last at Flying Fish, I recall that the most reasonable wine by the bottle was not listed on the wine list but next to the wine-by-the-class list on the dinner menu. Perhaps the diner who complained about the $40 bottles didn’t look at the by-the-glass list because he wanted a bottle.
Lesson Learned: Check the wine-by-the-glass list for bottles.
In any event, I find it curious that anybody would put up a hysterical defense for the high price of wine in Seattle restaurants.
When I was last at Flying Fish, I recall that the most reasonable wine by the bottle was not listed on the wine list but next to the wine-by-the-class list on the dinner menu. Perhaps the diner who complained about the $40 bottles didn’t look at the by-the-glass list because he wanted a bottle.
Lesson Learned: Check the wine-by-the-glass list for bottles.
In any event, I find it curious that anybody would put up a hysterical defense for the high price of wine in Seattle restaurants.
Nov 13th, 2005, 09:21 AM
#48
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because this poster did come back does not mean that the majority of new posters would. Again, Fodors is a business and it is not good for business to have stuff like that go on. Most are in agreement that he should not have been banned. I'm not sure if we know the whole story with respect to the content of the e-mail communication b/w Peter Kay and Patrick.
HOWEVER, it seems like it is reasonable to take the view that contacting the restaurant in the way that he did went too far. It is great that we can disagree, but even the most ardent pro-Patrick people can surely see that others may not appreciate the contacting the restaurant thing.
HOWEVER, it seems like it is reasonable to take the view that contacting the restaurant in the way that he did went too far. It is great that we can disagree, but even the most ardent pro-Patrick people can surely see that others may not appreciate the contacting the restaurant thing.
Nov 13th, 2005, 09:29 AM
#49
I don't think it's going to far to research in follow-up to something posted here. Often I pick up the phone on someone's behalf (since I'm sittin' here in Seattle) to check something local then post the information. Although this was under less "heated" circumstances (which it cracks me up to even use that word for this situation).
Glad you survived the crash PalmPilot!
Glad you survived the crash PalmPilot!
Nov 13th, 2005, 09:33 AM
#50
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 466
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
earl30, I think you are referring to me in your post above. I didn't mean to say that Patrick SHOULD re-post under another name. I said he COULD if he is that unhappy about being unable to post. Big difference. Friends who like Patrick a lot do not see his comments in the same light that people who have been speared by him do. That is human nature. Patrick and I had our differences but I am not for or against him. It is Fodor's call. I do agree with TandooriGirl that he came across as calling the OP in that thread a liar.
Nov 13th, 2005, 09:36 AM
#51
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll repeat something that I was told a lot by my parents when I was growing up: There is a way to say something, and there is a way not to say something.
The way Patrick responded would fall more into into the latter category. Far from "calling on someone's behalf," Patrick was a little more hostile in his research than is necessary. That may be just one thing among others that led to his temporary and/or permanent banning.
It is obvious that there are enough posters that agree that Patrick's strategy was over the top. Therefore, continuing to argue over it is pointless. As many people seem to agree as disagree, further attempts to refute every point of those disagreeing with the tone of Patrick's is futile.
The way Patrick responded would fall more into into the latter category. Far from "calling on someone's behalf," Patrick was a little more hostile in his research than is necessary. That may be just one thing among others that led to his temporary and/or permanent banning.
It is obvious that there are enough posters that agree that Patrick's strategy was over the top. Therefore, continuing to argue over it is pointless. As many people seem to agree as disagree, further attempts to refute every point of those disagreeing with the tone of Patrick's is futile.
Nov 13th, 2005, 09:58 AM
#52
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes, leelane it was you. since you posted that you were speared by patrick i clicked on your name and read a lot of your posts. i see where you speared patrick, but can't find an example of the other way round. there was a thread about the movie SIDEWAYS and several posters seemed to be having an intelligent and polite discussion. out of nowhere you attacked patrick because he didn't agree with someone's comment, yet there was nothing about his comments that warranted that reaction.
how does one determine that finding the truth and posting it was a hostile action, mah? seems to me you're reading an awful lot into someone's actions.
the other day i saw a whole lot of posts supporting patrick and saying that the wine issue couldn't have been the cause. all those posts have been removed -- was it because they supported him?
how does one determine that finding the truth and posting it was a hostile action, mah? seems to me you're reading an awful lot into someone's actions.
the other day i saw a whole lot of posts supporting patrick and saying that the wine issue couldn't have been the cause. all those posts have been removed -- was it because they supported him?
Nov 13th, 2005, 10:46 AM
#57
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
suze, why do you keep copying sentences and responding to them? This isn't a motion in court, it's travel forum. i'm a lawyer in my daily life, i don't want to be one on the fodors forum.
i think this thread has gone on long enough. And while a lot of other threads are off the point and redundant, the sole aim of this thread is to go back and forth on something that is moot. If we had a voice in deciding whether or not someone gets banned that would be one thing. But we don't- and he has already been banned.
i think this thread has gone on long enough. And while a lot of other threads are off the point and redundant, the sole aim of this thread is to go back and forth on something that is moot. If we had a voice in deciding whether or not someone gets banned that would be one thing. But we don't- and he has already been banned.
Nov 13th, 2005, 03:52 PM
#59
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since nobody pays to use this site or even needs to show proof that they buy Fodors products in order to use it, it doesn't strike me as odd that the board owners run it any way they like, regardless of what the board users think; we can't be deemed to be their 'customer' in any normal sense of the word. So mah is right - we won't affect this outcome no matter what. But there are still interesting aspects to the discussion.
Loveitaly, I admire your desire to try to put the record straight. And quite possibly the manager stated what he believed to be true. But (and I wish some legal beagle like mah or someone would verify this for me) strictly speaking, I don't think the manager of the restaurant can be taken to be a source of facts - he's just giving his best attempt at same, which isn't the same thing. He's merely a witness like the OP was/is. He might have the best of intentions, but he still can't be considered to be totally impartial since he has a vested income as to the outcome of the dispute. Also - at least as I understand it - his restaurant isn't in the habit of publishing their wine list on the Internet. So this makes it all the more difficult to determine what information was made available to the OP on the night in question, which is the only information that really counts. What's more, the source of information for the OP was another employee of the restaurant - the waiter. The OP simply gave an anecdotal account, and all that can be gathered from the manager is another anecdotal account. No facts, anywhere.
So as a layperson, I have trouble equating published information available to the public at any time (as is the case with, say, a rail schedule) with what, say, a rail company employee says is the case. If I tell you a train from Rome to Venice is scheduled to depart on Sundays at 15:02, anyone can verify the accuracy of this info by looking up the trenitalia website. But you'd still only know when the train was SCHEDULED to depart, and not when it actually departed on any given day. Similarly, the restaurant might be 'scheduled' to have x or y wine list available, but as to what actually happened on the night in question.....
Loveitaly, I admire your desire to try to put the record straight. And quite possibly the manager stated what he believed to be true. But (and I wish some legal beagle like mah or someone would verify this for me) strictly speaking, I don't think the manager of the restaurant can be taken to be a source of facts - he's just giving his best attempt at same, which isn't the same thing. He's merely a witness like the OP was/is. He might have the best of intentions, but he still can't be considered to be totally impartial since he has a vested income as to the outcome of the dispute. Also - at least as I understand it - his restaurant isn't in the habit of publishing their wine list on the Internet. So this makes it all the more difficult to determine what information was made available to the OP on the night in question, which is the only information that really counts. What's more, the source of information for the OP was another employee of the restaurant - the waiter. The OP simply gave an anecdotal account, and all that can be gathered from the manager is another anecdotal account. No facts, anywhere.
So as a layperson, I have trouble equating published information available to the public at any time (as is the case with, say, a rail schedule) with what, say, a rail company employee says is the case. If I tell you a train from Rome to Venice is scheduled to depart on Sundays at 15:02, anyone can verify the accuracy of this info by looking up the trenitalia website. But you'd still only know when the train was SCHEDULED to depart, and not when it actually departed on any given day. Similarly, the restaurant might be 'scheduled' to have x or y wine list available, but as to what actually happened on the night in question.....
Nov 13th, 2005, 04:19 PM
#60
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 28,672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we're customers in the same sense that network television viewers are customers of the networks: the viewers do not pay anything or have to show proof that they buy the products advertised, but their views (as expressed in ratings, letters, phone calls, etc.) are certainly taken into consideration when programming decisions are made.
