Re: One Hundred Simple Rules pt3: Arrested for not tipping
Lesmond
>I understand why places tack on the tip for large groups, but the
>mangement in this place has really shot themselves in the foot.
>
>http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20091119_College_students_arrested_for_not_paying_tip.html
>College students arrested for not paying tip
>
>By Peter Mucha
>
>Inquirer Staff Writer
>
>It was an evening out that college students Leslie Pope and John
>Wagner will long remember.
>
>Not only did they get what they called lousy service, they got
>handcuffed and arrested.
>
>All over a $16.35 tip.
>
>They were with a half-dozen friends at the Lehigh Pub in Bethlehem
>last month, so the establishment tacked what it called a mandatory 18
>percent gratuity onto the bill of about $73, according to reports.
>
>Pope and Wagner refused to pay.
>
>"You can't give us terrible, terrible service and expect a tip," said
>Pope, a 22-year-old Moravian College senior who's a Pottsville native,
>according to the Lehigh Valley Express-Times.
>
>They had to find their own napkins and cutlery while their waitress
>caught a smoke, had to ask the bar for soda refills, and had to wait
>over an hour for salad and wings, they told NBC10.
>
>The pub, which was very busy that night, took the $73, but then called
>the cops, who treated the matter as a theft.
>
>The menu clearly states, "18 percent gratuity added to check of
>parties of 6 of more," and a similar message is printed on receipts, a
>pub employee said this morning.
>
>A court date is scheduled for next month.
>
>What would they do if it happened again? a reporter asked.
>
>"Honestly, probably gonna pay the tip anyway," said Pope, prompting
>Wagner, 24, a Lehigh University grad student, to laugh.
This is localish to me. I can't wait for an update.
--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.
NadCixelsyd
civil case. With a required 18% gratuity, one should expect some
level of service. When the service was not provided, they ceased
their obligation to pay for it.
On a related note ... Until the late sixties, the "standard" tip was
10% of the bill. For a brief period, the "standard" jumped to 12%.
In the early seventies, it settled into 15% where it stood for 30+
years. Now the greedy waiters want 18%. Hell, restaurant food has
outpaced inflation and they want even more than that.
As a separate note, I contracted a hotel to provide an open bar for a
group. The charge was "X" plus an 18% gratuity. When the bar was
opened, the bartender put out a cup for tips. I call that super-
greedy. I had to ask twice for the cup to be removed as I was already
providing the tips. The fact that I had to ask twice as super-extra-
greedy.
Richard R. Hershberger
> Rather than a criminal case, the students could argue that this is a
> civil case. With a required 18% gratuity, one should expect some
> level of service. When the service was not provided, they ceased
> their obligation to pay for it.
This is assuming they had any obligation in the first place. The menu
quote clearly states that the 18% is a "gratuity". Unless the menu
also provides a definition of that term the dictionary definition
applies. The sole definition in Merriam Webster Online is:
": something given voluntarily or beyond obligation usually for some
service; especially : tip"
So by definition there is no obligation to pay a gratuity.
I would sue. I am serious. This isn't my area of particular
knowlege, but the torts of false imprisonment and defamation
immediately spring to mind.
> On a related note ... Until the late sixties, the "standard" tip was
> 10% of the bill. For a brief period, the "standard" jumped to 12%.
> In the early seventies, it settled into 15% where it stood for 30+
> years. Now the greedy waiters want 18%. Hell, restaurant food has
> outpaced inflation and they want even more than that.
Inflation is the argument I have heard for why the tipping percentage
keeps going up. I assume the persons making this argument don't
understand simple arithmetic, since they do not seem to be claiming
that menu prices have remained constant, or even risen at a rate below
general inflation.
Richard R. Hershberger
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
NadCixelsyd wrote:
>
> Rather than a criminal case, the students could argue that this is a
> civil case.
>
This is plainly a civil disagreement about payment for services
poorly rendered.
> With a required 18% gratuity, one should expect some
> level of service. When the service was not provided, they ceased
> their obligation to pay for it.
>
I don't know what a court would say, the implied contract is
apparently clearly stated, but it's not a criminal issue. I think
that the police should be sued over false arrest.
--
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
jeff_wisnia
<snipped>
>
> As a separate note, I contracted a hotel to provide an open bar for a
> group. The charge was "X" plus an 18% gratuity. When the bar was
> opened, the bartender put out a cup for tips. I call that super-
> greedy. I had to ask twice for the cup to be removed as I was already
> providing the tips. The fact that I had to ask twice as super-extra-
> greedy.
You beat me to it as I was going to comment on the same swinish
practice. When SWMBO and I put on affairs at hotels or other venues that
is one of two things we discuss in detail when making the arrangements.
The first is reaching an understanding with the band or DJ we're
employing that the decibel level of their music will be kept low enough
so that our guests can comfortably converse at their tables. (I now
bring my own drugstore earplugs to events where I suspect the
"entertainment" will be deafening, though I have been to some affairs
recently where the professional party planners had a trayfull of
earplugs for those who needed them.)
The second peeve is the one you brought up, I've seen that happen
several times, but only once did I see our hosts do something about it
toot sweet. I'm not embarrassed into tipping under those conditions, but
I've never had the guts to bring the matter to our hosts' attention either.
Jeff
--
Jeffry Wisnia
(W1BSV + Brass Rat '57 EE)
The speed of light is 1.8*10e12 furlongs per fortnight.
plausible prose man
> civil case.
It certainly is a criminal case, as it stands they're charged with
"defrauding an inn keeper" or something like that. They might well
convince whoever to drop those charges, but...
> With a required 18% gratuity, one should expect some
> level of service.
I am sure they recieved some level of service.
> When the service was not provided, they ceased
> their obligation to pay for it.
So, my friend and I we, went to see a midnight showing of "Raiders of
the Lost Ark" a few years ago, about the time the first of the most
recent set of Star Wars movies came out. This was obviously an older
copy of the movie they were showing; the film had several noticeable
gaps of many seconds in the beginning where it had broken and been
spliced, and it was scratchy throughout.
Dave, that's his name, he's more than a bit of a chisler, so on the
way out, he asked me if I thought we should try to get out money back
by complaining to the management about the quality of the print. I, of
course, was fairly mortified that he was even asking, since obviously
the movie was to his satisfaction, what with the way he sat through
the whole thing.
By analogy, therefore, we see the service couldn't have been all that
bad, now, could it? And refusing to pay for something you recieved and
consumed, well, that's stealing, isn't it?
> On a related note ... Until the late sixties, the "standard" tip was
> 10% of the bill. For a brief period, the "standard" jumped to 12%.
> In the early seventies, it settled into 15% where it stood for 30+
> years. Now the greedy waiters want 18%.
How dare people who do a demanding job under difficult circumstances
expect to be fairly compemnsated for it.
> Hell, restaurant food has
> outpaced inflation
Yeah, I gather the cost of living, so to speak, has outpaced
inflation for a while now such that wages have effectively declined
since the 1970's, especially among jobs like waiter.
> and they want even more than that.
>
> As a separate note, I contracted a hotel to provide an open bar for a
> group. The charge was "X" plus an 18% gratuity. When the bar was
> opened, the bartender put out a cup for tips. I call that super-
> greedy. I had to ask twice for the cup to be removed as I was already
> providing the tips. The fact that I had to ask twice as super-extra-
> greedy.
Even knowing all that, I would've still slipped whoever a five,
because when the old sailor needs his, well, he needs his now, and the
rest of you better gangway.
plausible prose man
> On Nov 20, 1:26 pm, NadCixelsyd <nadcixel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Rather than a criminal case, the students could argue that this is a
> > civil case. With a required 18% gratuity, one should expect some
> > level of service. When the service was not provided, they ceased
> > their obligation to pay for it.
>
> This is assuming they had any obligation in the first place. The menu
> quote clearly states that the 18% is a "gratuity". Unless the menu
> also provides a definition of that term the dictionary definition
> applies. The sole definition in Merriam Webster Online is:
>
> ": something given voluntarily or beyond obligation usually for some
> service; especially : tip"
>
> So by definition there is no obligation to pay a gratuity.
You know, unless some manager at a restaurant decided it was a nicer
way to say "service charge" and they put it on your bill and say
you're obligated to pay that much.
> I would sue.
Huh. I hope you spend a lot of money and lose anyway. Indeed, under
the legal system I favor, I'd expect you to pay the costs of defending
against your suit when you lose anyway.
Jesper Lauridsen
>
> Yeah, I gather the cost of living, so to speak, has outpaced
> inflation for a while now
How on earth is that possible?
Slow Motion Apocalypse
wrote:
> On 2009-11-20, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Yeah, I gather the cost of living, so to speak, has outpaced
> > inflation for a while now
>
> How on earth is that possible?
10 years ago I could live quite comfortably on what I make now. Now I
am barely scraping by. And I have cut way way back too.
mike muth
> Inflation is the argument I have heard for why the tipping percentage
> keeps going up. I assume the persons making this argument don't
> understand simple arithmetic, since they do not seem to be claiming
> that menu prices have remained constant, or even risen at a rate below
> general inflation.
It allows management to keep paying extremely low wages to serving
staff.
Here in Germany, the tip is included in the menu price. For exemplary
service, one can give a little extra. Also people often round the
bill up and let the waitperson keep the change.
Inflation is the excuse offered to people who don't understand the
math.
--
Mike
Heather
In Australia the government simply fudges the figures in various ways.
For example, for the purpose of measuring inflation any price increase
deemed to be caused by increases in taxation or changes in regulations
or policy are discounted.
--
Heather
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
plausible prose man wrote:
>
> On Nov 20, 1:26 pm, NadCixelsyd <nadcixel...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Rather than a criminal case, the students could argue that this is a
> > civil case.
>
> It certainly is a criminal case, as it stands they're charged with
> "defrauding an inn keeper" or something like that. They might well
> convince whoever to drop those charges, but...
>
> > With a required 18% gratuity, one should expect some
> > level of service.
>
> I am sure they recieved some level of service.
>
> > When the service was not provided, they ceased
> > their obligation to pay for it.
>
> So, my friend and I we, went to see a midnight showing of "Raiders of
> the Lost Ark" a few years ago, about the time the first of the most
> recent set of Star Wars movies came out. This was obviously an older
> copy of the movie they were showing; the film had several noticeable
> gaps of many seconds in the beginning where it had broken and been
> spliced, and it was scratchy throughout.
>
> Dave, that's his name, he's more than a bit of a chisler, so on the
> way out, he asked me if I thought we should try to get out money back
> by complaining to the management about the quality of the print. I, of
> course, was fairly mortified that he was even asking, since obviously
> the movie was to his satisfaction, what with the way he sat through
> the whole thing.
>
Because he sat through it all doesn't mean it was to his
satisfaction, not that that is or isn't reason to give him his
money back.
> By analogy, therefore, we see the service couldn't have been all that
> bad, now, could it? And refusing to pay for something you recieved and
> consumed, well, that's stealing, isn't it?
>
If you refused to pay for a thing and just kept it, that would be
stealing. It's not stealing to disagree about the quality of
service. This is for a court to decide and this plainly should be a
simple civil disagreement.
> > On a related note ... Until the late sixties, the "standard" tip was
> > 10% of the bill. For a brief period, the "standard" jumped to 12%.
> > In the early seventies, it settled into 15% where it stood for 30+
> > years. Now the greedy waiters want 18%.
>
> How dare people who do a demanding job under difficult circumstances
> expect to be fairly compemnsated for it.
>
How dare they play games and not state what the charges are before
you incur them. Sure, they are written somewhere on the wall where
you didn't notice them, sure they are on the bill *after* you've
got stuck. What would be fair would be to include the entire cost
of the meal in the cost of the meal. If people wish to show they
are happy with the service, they can pay more. What a concept.
plausible prose man
Yes, it does.
> not that that is or isn't reason to give him his
> money back.
Or, say, if you ate all of your ice cream, I wouldn't be terribly
interested in your complaints about how it wasn't very good.
> > By analogy, therefore, we see the service couldn't have been all that
> > bad, now, could it? And refusing to pay for something you recieved and
> > consumed, well, that's stealing, isn't it?
>
> If you refused to pay for a thing and just kept it, that would be
> stealing.
Ok.
> It's not stealing to disagree about the quality of
> service.
Right, Bill...it's stealing to take something without paying for it.
> This is for a court to decide and this plainly should be a
> simple civil disagreement.
You know, apart from the "defrauding an innkeeper" element.
> > > On a related note ... Until the late sixties, the "standard" tip was
> > > 10% of the bill. For a brief period, the "standard" jumped to 12%.
> > > In the early seventies, it settled into 15% where it stood for 30+
> > > years. Now the greedy waiters want 18%.
>
> > How dare people who do a demanding job under difficult circumstances
> > expect to be fairly compemnsated for it.
>
> How dare they play games and not state what the charges are before
> you incur them.
Oh, no, not this. Bill, do you know how much to tip, or not? Careful,
because "I don't know" is...well, just the most recent example of
Bonde being Bonde, huh?
Sano
news:da34d69f-9ef1-42ea...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.
com:
A lo-ng time ago I worked banquet food service. IME that
"gratuity" never got to the wait staff. Hah
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
He maybe wondered how the show ended but was also dissatisfied with
the way it was being presented, with interruptions and missing
bits. Of course if you go to the one buck show, you should expect
cracked and spliced content.
> > not that that is or isn't reason to give him his
> > money back.
>
> Or, say, if you ate all of your ice cream, I wouldn't be terribly
> interested in your complaints about how it wasn't very good.
>
I agree that if I wanted a refund, I should have presented the
product to you for inspection. Often shops don't worry so much
about it, however, if you've got a good argument and if you aren't
in there daily looking for free fixings. I think regarding food
that you should bring back in product that is problematic so that
the producer and distributor know there's a problem.
> > > By analogy, therefore, we see the service couldn't have been all that
> > > bad, now, could it? And refusing to pay for something you recieved and
> > > consumed, well, that's stealing, isn't it?
> >
> > If you refused to pay for a thing and just kept it, that would be
> > stealing.
>
> Ok.
>
> > It's not stealing to disagree about the quality of
> > service.
>
> Right, Bill...it's stealing to take something without paying for it.
>
You are ignoring that you have a right in law to dispute charges
and dispute the quality of a good. This is a civil question.
> > This is for a court to decide and this plainly should be a
> > simple civil disagreement.
>
> You know, apart from the "defrauding an innkeeper" element.
>
If you refuse to pay all the rent for your apartment, say because
you think you shouldn't because of the rats running around, the
mould, the green water coming out of the kitchen facet, when it
runs at all, etc., you will not be arrested. You know what, you'll
get at most taken into *civil* court and that's that. You can then
make a counterclaim or a "set off". Of course you can be removed
from your apartment via the rules of unlawful detainer
.
> > > > On a related note ... Until the late sixties, the "standard" tip was
> > > > 10% of the bill. For a brief period, the "standard" jumped to 12%.
> > > > In the early seventies, it settled into 15% where it stood for 30+
> > > > years. Now the greedy waiters want 18%.
> >
> > > How dare people who do a demanding job under difficult circumstances
> > > expect to be fairly compemnsated for it.
> >
> > How dare they play games and not state what the charges are before
> > you incur them.
>
> Oh, no, not this. Bill, do you know how much to tip, or not? Careful,
> because "I don't know" is...well, just the most recent example of
> Bonde being Bonde, huh?
>
What? Do I know how much to tip? No, I don't. I think that "tip"
should be something I do if I want to do it. So I completely
disagree with the forced tipping nonsense. That I have to follow it
where it is the convention, I accept, of course.
plausible prose man
> > > > So, my friend and I we, went to see a midnight showing of "Raiders of
> > > > the Lost Ark" a few years ago, about the time the first of the most
> > > > recent set of Star Wars movies came out. This was obviously an older
> > > > copy of the movie they were showing; the film had several noticeable
> > > > gaps of many seconds in the beginning where it had broken and been
> > > > spliced, and it was scratchy throughout.
>
> > > > Dave, that's his name, he's more than a bit of a chisler, so on the
> > > > way out, he asked me if I thought we should try to get out money back
> > > > by complaining to the management about the quality of the print. I, of
> > > > course, was fairly mortified that he was even asking, since obviously
> > > > the movie was to his satisfaction, what with the way he sat through
> > > > the whole thing.
>
> > > Because he sat through it all doesn't mean it was to his
> > > satisfaction,
>
> > Yes, it does.
>
> He maybe wondered how the show ended
Raiders of the Lost Ark? In, um...2003 or whenever it was?
> but was also dissatisfied with
> the way it was being presented,
Obviously not, huh? Or at least not to a degree that made the movie
unwatchable to him.
> with interruptions and missing
> bits. Of course if you go to the one buck show, you should expect
> cracked and spliced content.
What?
> > > not that that is or isn't reason to give him his
> > > money back.
>
> > Or, say, if you ate all of your ice cream, I wouldn't be terribly
> > interested in your complaints about how it wasn't very good.
>
> I agree that if I wanted a refund, I should have presented the
> product to you for inspection.
And, um...you know, complained about it and stopped eating it after a
couple of bites.
> Often shops don't worry so much
> about it, however, if you've got a good argument and if you aren't
> in there daily looking for free fixings.
Which isn't the same thing as being in the right, huh?
> I think regarding food
> that you should bring back in product that is problematic so that
> the producer and distributor know there's a problem.
You know, and it isn't obvious you're just trying to chisle a free
meal because you weren't raised right or something.
> > > > By analogy, therefore, we see the service couldn't have been all that
> > > > bad, now, could it? And refusing to pay for something you recieved and
> > > > consumed, well, that's stealing, isn't it?
>
> > > If you refused to pay for a thing and just kept it, that would be
> > > stealing.
>
> > Ok.
>
> > > It's not stealing to disagree about the quality of
> > > service.
>
> > Right, Bill...it's stealing to take something without paying for it.
>
> You are ignoring that you have a right in law to dispute charges
> and dispute the quality of a good.
I think there's a certain "cake and eat it too" question there.
>This is a civil question.
You know, except when its defrauding an innkeeper.
> > > This is for a court to decide and this plainly should be a
> > > simple civil disagreement.
>
> > You know, apart from the "defrauding an innkeeper" element.
>
> If you refuse to pay all the rent for your apartment, say because
> you think you shouldn't because of the rats running around, the
> mould, the green water coming out of the kitchen facet, when it
> runs at all, etc., you will not be arrested.
Sure, okay. If, on the other hand, you refuse to pay for a meal in a
restaurant, you probably will be.
> > > > > On a related note ... Until the late sixties, the "standard" tip was
> > > > > 10% of the bill. For a brief period, the "standard" jumped to 12%.
> > > > > In the early seventies, it settled into 15% where it stood for 30+
> > > > > years. Now the greedy waiters want 18%.
>
> > > > How dare people who do a demanding job under difficult circumstances
> > > > expect to be fairly compemnsated for it.
>
> > > How dare they play games and not state what the charges are before
> > > you incur them.
>
> > Oh, no, not this. Bill, do you know how much to tip, or not? Careful,
> > because "I don't know" is...well, just the most recent example of
> > Bonde being Bonde, huh?
>
> What? Do I know how much to tip? No, I don't.
Tip twenty percent. You especially.
> I think that "tip"
> should be something I do if I want to do it. So I completely
> disagree with the forced tipping nonsense. That I have to follow it
> where it is the convention, I accept, of course.
Eh, you know...you could stiff someone on their tip and not be any
worse than the jerk most people already think you are, you know,
unless it appears as an item on a bill, apparently. Still, I think
even there, there's a good case for "moral equivalent" of stealing.
Mac
As some (Samuelson most accessibly, if memory serves) have pointed
out, in an ecoonmy where automated manufacturing and other industries
where labor tends to get more efficient provide the yardstick for
salaries and wages, service jobs, and, in fact, any in which "face
time" is a valuable asset, are going to go up faster than inflation.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
plausible prose man wrote:
>
> On Nov 21, 1:08 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
> recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > plausible prose man wrote:
>
> > > > > So, my friend and I we, went to see a midnight showing of "Raiders of
> > > > > the Lost Ark" a few years ago, about the time the first of the most
> > > > > recent set of Star Wars movies came out. This was obviously an older
> > > > > copy of the movie they were showing; the film had several noticeable
> > > > > gaps of many seconds in the beginning where it had broken and been
> > > > > spliced, and it was scratchy throughout.
> >
> > > > > Dave, that's his name, he's more than a bit of a chisler, so on the
> > > > > way out, he asked me if I thought we should try to get out money back
> > > > > by complaining to the management about the quality of the print. I, of
> > > > > course, was fairly mortified that he was even asking, since obviously
> > > > > the movie was to his satisfaction, what with the way he sat through
> > > > > the whole thing.
> >
> > > > Because he sat through it all doesn't mean it was to his
> > > > satisfaction,
> >
> > > Yes, it does.
> >
> > He maybe wondered how the show ended
>
> Raiders of the Lost Ark? In, um...2003 or whenever it was?
>
I am joking.
> > but was also dissatisfied with
> > the way it was being presented,
>
> Obviously not, huh? Or at least not to a degree that made the movie
> unwatchable to him.
>
But what is "satisfaction"? Does it exist when you don't get out of
your chair and leave? Some people are not going to get out of their
chair and leave even if they are remarkably unhappy.
> > with interruptions and missing
> > bits. Of course if you go to the one buck show, you should expect
> > cracked and spliced content.
>
> What?
>
Whatever you wish to call it. When they don't charge much to see a
film. In situations like that, they might generally use old film
stock. So you should expect trouble, it's part of the charm.
> > > > not that that is or isn't reason to give him his
> > > > money back.
> >
> > > Or, say, if you ate all of your ice cream, I wouldn't be terribly
> > > interested in your complaints about how it wasn't very good.
> >
> > I agree that if I wanted a refund, I should have presented the
> > product to you for inspection.
>
> And, um...you know, complained about it and stopped eating it after a
> couple of bites.
>
Right, but that's not true of "service". In that case, are you
supposed to stand up and refuse to eat the meal, which you are
willing to pay for, because the service is not so good, which you
don't want to pay extra for?
> > Often shops don't worry so much
> > about it, however, if you've got a good argument and if you aren't
> > in there daily looking for free fixings.
>
> Which isn't the same thing as being in the right, huh?
>
In a situation where there is a disagreement about the quality of a
product or service, we can't just state with any certainty who is
right. The idea that a civil issue, which it plainly is, should be
raised to the level of a criminal arrest is something I feel can be
stated with certainty as being absurd.
> > I think regarding food
> > that you should bring back in product that is problematic so that
> > the producer and distributor know there's a problem.
>
> You know, and it isn't obvious you're just trying to chisle a free
> meal because you weren't raised right or something.
>
I think if the milk I bought goes sour before the sell by date, I
should get a new one. Is that "chiselling"? I think it's informing
the source that there's a problem and it's exacting a cost for
their poor quality standards. This encourages them to produce milk
that won't go bad by the sell by date.
> > > > > By analogy, therefore, we see the service couldn't have been all that
> > > > > bad, now, could it? And refusing to pay for something you recieved and
> > > > > consumed, well, that's stealing, isn't it?
> >
> > > > If you refused to pay for a thing and just kept it, that would be
> > > > stealing.
> >
> > > Ok.
> >
> > > > It's not stealing to disagree about the quality of
> > > > service.
> >
> > > Right, Bill...it's stealing to take something without paying for it.
> >
> > You are ignoring that you have a right in law to dispute charges
> > and dispute the quality of a good.
>
> I think there's a certain "cake and eat it too" question there.
>
If it's worth it to you to fight in court over a few bucks.
> >This is a civil question.
>
> You know, except when its defrauding an innkeeper.
>
It's still a civil question.
> > > > This is for a court to decide and this plainly should be a
> > > > simple civil disagreement.
> >
> > > You know, apart from the "defrauding an innkeeper" element.
> >
> > If you refuse to pay all the rent for your apartment, say because
> > you think you shouldn't because of the rats running around, the
> > mould, the green water coming out of the kitchen facet, when it
> > runs at all, etc., you will not be arrested.
>
> Sure, okay. If, on the other hand, you refuse to pay for a meal in a
> restaurant, you probably will be.
>
It's a civil question. You shouldn't be arrested.
> > > > > > On a related note ... Until the late sixties, the "standard" tip was
> > > > > > 10% of the bill. For a brief period, the "standard" jumped to 12%.
> > > > > > In the early seventies, it settled into 15% where it stood for 30+
> > > > > > years. Now the greedy waiters want 18%.
> >
> > > > > How dare people who do a demanding job under difficult circumstances
> > > > > expect to be fairly compemnsated for it.
> >
> > > > How dare they play games and not state what the charges are before
> > > > you incur them.
> >
> > > Oh, no, not this. Bill, do you know how much to tip, or not? Careful,
> > > because "I don't know" is...well, just the most recent example of
> > > Bonde being Bonde, huh?
> >
> > What? Do I know how much to tip? No, I don't.
>
> Tip twenty percent. You especially.
>
Why should I tip at all? Just include it in the damn price!
> > I think that "tip"
> > should be something I do if I want to do it. So I completely
> > disagree with the forced tipping nonsense. That I have to follow it
> > where it is the convention, I accept, of course.
>
> Eh, you know...you could stiff someone on their tip
>
"Tip" means extra. Include the "tip" in the damn price of the food.
> and not be any
> worse than the jerk most people already think you are, you know,
>
I'm a nice guy here and elsewhere. You are usually hardly polite,
which is why I wonder why you are defending paying tips. I would
have thought you'd be all for stiffing the waiter when they go for
a smoke instead of getting you your grub.
> unless it appears as an item on a bill, apparently.
>
But since you aren't given the bill until after the meal, there is
a question of constructive notice.
> Still, I think
> even there, there's a good case for "moral equivalent" of stealing.
>
I believe that the whole tip thing is a con but even aside from
that, the issue is purely civil.
Lesmond
>On Nov 20, 1:26ÿpm, NadCixelsyd <nadcixel...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Rather than a criminal case, the students could argue that this is a
>> civil case.
>
> It certainly is a criminal case, as it stands they're charged with
>"defrauding an inn keeper" or something like that. They might well
>convince whoever to drop those charges, but...
>
>>ÿWith a required 18% gratuity, one should expect some
>> level of service.
>
> I am sure they recieved some level of service.
>
>>ÿWhen the service was not provided, they ceased
>> their obligation to pay for it.
>
> So, my friend and I we, went to see a midnight showing of "Raiders of
>the Lost Ark" a few years ago, about the time the first of the most
>recent set of Star Wars movies came out. This was obviously an older
>copy of the movie they were showing; the film had several noticeable
>gaps of many seconds in the beginning where it had broken and been
>spliced, and it was scratchy throughout.
>
> Dave, that's his name, he's more than a bit of a chisler, so on the
>way out, he asked me if I thought we should try to get out money back
>by complaining to the management about the quality of the print. I, of
>course, was fairly mortified that he was even asking, since obviously
>the movie was to his satisfaction, what with the way he sat through
>the whole thing.
>
> By analogy, therefore, we see the service couldn't have been all that
>bad, now, could it? And refusing to pay for something you recieved and
>consumed, well, that's stealing, isn't it?
They weren't refusing to pay for the food, just the tip. Which I agree
should be based on service received.
plausible prose man
I understand that. I think refusing to pay at that point is at least
a form of theft, and in this case quite literally so.
> Which I agree
> should be based on service received.
I don't disagree with that, exactly, except to state that one can
reasonably infer the service recieved was satisfactory, since the
parties involved apparently seemingly didn't decide to welch out on
part of their bill until after the plates were taken away and they
were sitting back, patting their ol' tum tums, suffering from what we
call, "the -itis."
I think it at least equally likely, and will simply not entertain any
discussion otherwise, they decided their dignity was somehow affronted
when it turned out the tip was included, because, they imagine, such
things are supposed to be a voluntary reward for exemplary service,
and so refused to pay on a stand of principle.
plausible prose man
recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> plausible prose man wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 1:08 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
> > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > plausible prose man wrote:
>
> > > > > > So, my friend and I we, went to see a midnight showing of "Raiders of
> > > > > > the Lost Ark" a few years ago, about the time the first of the most
> > > > > > recent set of Star Wars movies came out. This was obviously an older
> > > > > > copy of the movie they were showing; the film had several noticeable
> > > > > > gaps of many seconds in the beginning where it had broken and been
> > > > > > spliced, and it was scratchy throughout.
>
> > > > > > Dave, that's his name, he's more than a bit of a chisler, so on the
> > > > > > way out, he asked me if I thought we should try to get out money back
> > > > > > by complaining to the management about the quality of the print. I, of
> > > > > > course, was fairly mortified that he was even asking, since obviously
> > > > > > the movie was to his satisfaction, what with the way he sat through
> > > > > > the whole thing.
>
> > > > > Because he sat through it all doesn't mean it was to his
> > > > > satisfaction,
>
> > > > Yes, it does.
>
> > > He maybe wondered how the show ended
>
> > Raiders of the Lost Ark? In, um...2003 or whenever it was?
>
> I am joking.
Yes, so let's wrap this whole thing up and you can just admit I'm
right and we'll move on here.
> > > but was also dissatisfied with
> > > the way it was being presented,
>
> > Obviously not, huh? Or at least not to a degree that made the movie
> > unwatchable to him.
>
> But what is "satisfaction"? Does it exist when you don't get out of
> your chair and leave?
Let's say it can be reasonably inferred from that, yeah.
> Some people are not going to get out of their
> chair and leave even if they are remarkably unhappy.
We can't run our lives and our businesses around those with overly
complex inner lives.
> > > with interruptions and missing
> > > bits. Of course if you go to the one buck show, you should expect
> > > cracked and spliced content.
>
> > What?
>
> Whatever you wish to call it. When they don't charge much to see a
> film. In situations like that, they might generally use old film
> stock. So you should expect trouble, it's part of the charm.
Right, so, Bondeing aside we would agree you'd need something better
if you were going to argue the proffered goods were not delivered to
the customer's satisfaction when a twenty year old movie is shown at a
discount, especially if you only ask for a refund after you've sat
through the whole thing.
> > > > > not that that is or isn't reason to give him his
> > > > > money back.
>
> > > > Or, say, if you ate all of your ice cream, I wouldn't be terribly
> > > > interested in your complaints about how it wasn't very good.
>
> > > I agree that if I wanted a refund, I should have presented the
> > > product to you for inspection.
>
> > And, um...you know, complained about it and stopped eating it after a
> > couple of bites.
>
> Right, but that's not true of "service".
See, I think it is true of service.
> In that case, are you
> supposed to stand up and refuse to eat the meal, which you are
> willing to pay for, because the service is not so good, which you
> don't want to pay extra for?
Yes. Or at least, you know, go speak to the manager, who will almost
certainly take your side even when you're so wrong-y you're bonde.
> > > Often shops don't worry so much
> > > about it, however, if you've got a good argument and if you aren't
> > > in there daily looking for free fixings.
>
> > Which isn't the same thing as being in the right, huh?
>
> In a situation where there is a disagreement about the quality of a
> product or service, we can't just state with any certainty who is
> right. The idea that a civil issue, which it plainly is, should be
> raised to the level of a criminal arrest is something I feel can be
> stated with certainty as being absurd.
I gather "defrauding an innkeeper" is fairly serious, as minor crimes
go.
> > > I think regarding food
> > > that you should bring back in product that is problematic so that
> > > the producer and distributor know there's a problem.
>
> > You know, and it isn't obvious you're just trying to chisle a free
> > meal because you weren't raised right or something.
>
> I think if the milk I bought goes sour before the sell by date, I
> should get a new one.
Okay. However, I have to wonder just how sour that milk was if what
you bring back was an empty milk carton.
> Is that "chiselling"?
Absent other information, it would be indistinguishable from
chisleing, yes.
> I think it's informing
> the source that there's a problem and it's exacting a cost for
> their poor quality standards.
Please try to actually respond to the matter at hand and not move off
into Bonde land.
> > > > > > By analogy, therefore, we see the service couldn't have been all that
> > > > > > bad, now, could it? And refusing to pay for something you recieved and
> > > > > > consumed, well, that's stealing, isn't it?
>
> > > > > If you refused to pay for a thing and just kept it, that would be
> > > > > stealing.
>
> > > > Ok.
>
> > > > > It's not stealing to disagree about the quality of
> > > > > service.
>
> > > > Right, Bill...it's stealing to take something without paying for it.
>
> > > You are ignoring that you have a right in law to dispute charges
> > > and dispute the quality of a good.
>
> > I think there's a certain "cake and eat it too" question there.
>
> If it's worth it to you to fight in court over a few bucks.
Yeah, I'm wondering...here's another more or less analogous example.
I was watching The People's Court, the one with the Cubana judge?
These two guys appeared before her, one was some small businessman, a
car detailer or something, and the other was some guy from a temp
agency, and basically the case hinged on one guy was suing for unpaid
wages and the other guy's defense was he shouldn't have to pay that
guy, he did a lousy job. The judges found for the plaintiff, though,
stating that while perhaps the guy didn't do a great job, the owner or
manager or whatever he was didn't send him home, either, and so the
defendant owed the defendent for his time.
So, I would say that extends to the case here.
> > >This is a civil question.
>
> > You know, except when its defrauding an innkeeper.
>
> It's still a civil question.
You know, except where its a criminal question.
> > > > > This is for a court to decide and this plainly should be a
> > > > > simple civil disagreement.
>
> > > > You know, apart from the "defrauding an innkeeper" element.
>
> > > If you refuse to pay all the rent for your apartment, say because
> > > you think you shouldn't because of the rats running around, the
> > > mould, the green water coming out of the kitchen facet, when it
> > > runs at all, etc., you will not be arrested.
>
> > Sure, okay. If, on the other hand, you refuse to pay for a meal in a
> > restaurant, you probably will be.
>
> It's a civil question.
Well, its not, actually, its a criminal question. There are laws on
the books in most jurisdictions to the effect if you try to welch out
on a bill like that you have commited a crime.
> > > > > > > On a related note ... Until the late sixties, the "standard" tip was
> > > > > > > 10% of the bill. For a brief period, the "standard" jumped to 12%.
> > > > > > > In the early seventies, it settled into 15% where it stood for 30+
> > > > > > > years. Now the greedy waiters want 18%.
>
> > > > > > How dare people who do a demanding job under difficult circumstances
> > > > > > expect to be fairly compemnsated for it.
>
> > > > > How dare they play games and not state what the charges are before
> > > > > you incur them.
>
> > > > Oh, no, not this. Bill, do you know how much to tip, or not? Careful,
> > > > because "I don't know" is...well, just the most recent example of
> > > > Bonde being Bonde, huh?
>
> > > What? Do I know how much to tip? No, I don't.
>
> > Tip twenty percent. You especially.
>
> Why should I tip at all?
Because you're incentivizing "waiting on me" past indifference.
>Just include it in the damn price!
Ah, but when we do that, we see people who think it should be their
choice to pay the people who wait on them, and think they can just
leave that part of their bill unpaid if they asked for no lemon in
their tea and got lemon in their tea and then the waitress solved the
problem by removing the lemon from the tea, or whatever.
> > > I think that "tip"
> > > should be something I do if I want to do it. So I completely
> > > disagree with the forced tipping nonsense. That I have to follow it
> > > where it is the convention, I accept, of course.
>
> > Eh, you know...you could stiff someone on their tip
>
> "Tip" means extra.
Also, when you go to a museum and see "suggested donation," I
understand that's not so much they're thinking, you know, no pressure
or anything, but it would be nice of you to leave a little gift so
much as just that's what they're expecting you to pay to get in to see
whatever.
> Include the "tip" in the damn price of the food.
But it's not the food, its the service.
> > and not be any
> > worse than the jerk most people already think you are, you know,
>
> I'm a nice guy here and elsewhere.
Through the bonde-glass.
> You are usually hardly polite,
Evil to him who thinks evil
> which is why I wonder why you are defending paying tips.
Because I am practially spilling over with empathy, except for, you
know, total shitheads.
> I would
> have thought you'd be all for stiffing the waiter when they go for
> a smoke instead of getting you your grub.
Somehow, they don't do that, but then I tip a lot, and even that I
leverage with little psychological nudges, trying to evoke, you know,
money you got from gramma at Christmas time?
> > unless it appears as an item on a bill, apparently.
>
> But since you aren't given the bill until after the meal, there is
> a question of constructive notice.
No, there isn't; that the charge would be included in the bill was
plainly stated in advance of the transaction.
Please stop being such a retarded liar.
> > Still, I think
> > even there, there's a good case for "moral equivalent" of stealing.
>
> I believe that the whole tip thing is a con but even aside from
> that, the issue is purely civil.
Still, I think, even there, there's a good case for "moral
equivalent" of stealing. If something in a restaurant isn't to your
liking, you apparently have to pay your bill anyway, and then can
perhaps sue later. If that thing is the service, well..the fact they
won't have you arrested doesn't mean it isn't wrong, and if "included
service charge" appeared on the bill, they could have you arrested,
huh?
Bob Ward
>> It certainly is a criminal case, as it stands they're charged with
>>"defrauding an inn keeper" or something like that. They might well
>>convince whoever to drop those charges, but...
>>
If the innkeeper is charging a "gratuity" for service not rendered,
just who is defrauding who?
plausible prose man
Obviously the service was rendered.
> just who is defrauding who?
You are defrauding everyone you try to pass yourself off as a person
to.
Binyamin Dissen
recirculation' )" <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
:>plausible prose man wrote:
[ much snippage ]
:>> and not be any
:>> worse than the jerk most people already think you are, you know,
>
:>I'm a nice guy here and elsewhere. You are usually hardly polite,
:>which is why I wonder why you are defending paying tips. I would
:>have thought you'd be all for stiffing the waiter when they go for
:>a smoke instead of getting you your grub.
Perhaps PPM is a quite poor waiter who can only get tips if they are forced?
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.
I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.
plausible prose man
wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:35:41 +0000 "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
> recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :>plausible prose man wrote:
>
> [ much snippage ]
>
> :>> and not be any
> :>> worse than the jerk most people already think you are, you know,
>
> :>I'm a nice guy here and elsewhere. You are usually hardly polite,
> :>which is why I wonder why you are defending paying tips. I would
> :>have thought you'd be all for stiffing the waiter when they go for
> :>a smoke instead of getting you your grub.
>
> Perhaps PPM is a quite poor waiter who can only get tips if they are forced?
Perhaps Binyan is a thief who thinks he can welch out on a service
charge if, say, there was a slice of lemon in his ice tea.
Alan J Rosenthal
>On Nov 21, 4:35=A0pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
>> Include the "tip" in the damn price of the food.
>
> But it's not the food, its the service.
Normally, the service is included in the price of a purchased item.
When I buy a bag of coffee beans, the price I pay includes not only the
value of the original coffee plants, the harvesting, processing, storage,
and transportation; but also the cost of the person who hands it to me saying
"have a nice day, sir."
The price on the menu should include all aspects of service, and pay rates
should be negotiated between employees and employers. If the employer and
the employee agree that a particular customer was served appropriately,
the employee's pay shouldn't be docked at the whim of the customer.
()
> On Nov 20, 1:26 pm, NadCixelsyd <nadcixel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Rather than a criminal case, the students could argue that this is a
> > civil case.
>
> It certainly is a criminal case, as it stands they're charged with
> "defrauding an inn keeper" or something like that. They might well
> convince whoever to drop those charges, but...
In my view (local law may differ), if you leave your name and address
and tell the owner or manager that you have a dispute, that's why you
are refusing to pay, that's not fraud. Btw, why was not the innkeeper
charged with defrauding the customers, when he attempted to charge
them for a service that was not provided to an acceptable standard.
> > With a required 18% gratuity, one should expect some
> > level of service.
>
> I am sure they recieved some level of service.
For 18%, it had better be damned good.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
I'm somewhat taken aback by your odd concern about the welfare of
wait staff. You don't show such worry about people who own
businesses that are crushed by the likes of Walmart. You also don't
seem to care about consumer rights. And it's all so bogus anyway.
If you want people who work in restaurants to get paid well, just
pay them more.
Lesmond
>On Nov 21, 5:35ÿpm, "Lesmond" <lesm...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:19:34 -0800 (PST), plausible prose man wrote:
>> >On Nov 20, 1:26˜pm, NadCixelsyd <nadcixel...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> Rather than a criminal case, the students could argue that this is a
>> >> civil case.
>>
>> > It certainly is a criminal case, as it stands they're charged with
>> >"defrauding an inn keeper" or something like that. They might well
>> >convince whoever to drop those charges, but...
>>
>> >>˜With a required 18% gratuity, one should expect some
>> >> level of service.
>>
>> > I am sure they recieved some level of service.
>>
>> >>˜When the service was not provided, they ceased
>> >> their obligation to pay for it.
>>
>> > So, my friend and I we, went to see a midnight showing of "Raiders of
>> >the Lost Ark" a few years ago, about the time the first of the most
>> >recent set of Star Wars movies came out. This was obviously an older
>> >copy of the movie they were showing; the film had several noticeable
>> >gaps of many seconds in the beginning where it had broken and been
>> >spliced, and it was scratchy throughout.
>>
>> > Dave, that's his name, he's more than a bit of a chisler, so on the
>> >way out, he asked me if I thought we should try to get out money back
>> >by complaining to the management about the quality of the print. I, of
>> >course, was fairly mortified that he was even asking, since obviously
>> >the movie was to his satisfaction, what with the way he sat through
>> >the whole thing.
>>
>> > By analogy, therefore, we see the service couldn't have been all that
>> >bad, now, could it? And refusing to pay for something you recieved and
>> >consumed, well, that's stealing, isn't it?
>>
>> They weren't refusing to pay for the food, just the tip.
>
> I understand that. I think refusing to pay at that point is at least
>a form of theft, and in this case quite literally so.
>
>> ÿWhich I agree
>> should be based on service received.
>
> I don't disagree with that, exactly, except to state that one can
>reasonably infer the service recieved was satisfactory, since the
>parties involved apparently seemingly didn't decide to welch out on
>part of their bill until after the plates were taken away and they
>were sitting back, patting their ol' tum tums, suffering from what we
>call, "the -itis."
>
> I think it at least equally likely, and will simply not entertain any
>discussion otherwise, they decided their dignity was somehow affronted
>when it turned out the tip was included, because, they imagine, such
>things are supposed to be a voluntary reward for exemplary service,
>and so refused to pay on a stand of principle.
I once went to a show to see a particular guy play. It was a charity event,
with around 5-6 different bands performing. But I was there to see the
"headliner" as it were. I went specifically to see him and paid the money to
see him. All night they made announcements that he would be playing.
At the time he was supposed to take the stage, the announcement was made that
he would not be appearing. A few of us went to the box office to get our
money back. We were told that we had enjoyed an entire evening of music and
we didn't deserve our money back. The girl even said, "If you weren't having
fun, you wouldn't have stayed all night."
But...I had stayed in expectation of seeing the performer I had come to see
and whom they had kept insisting would be there. I mean, I wasn't even going
to keep the money, I was going to donate the entire amount to the charity
instead of letting this lying, thieving venue take their cut. But her
argument was that if I had stayed, they had earned their money.
Happily I was working for an attorney at the time. One call from him and I
had my money back. They knew they were wrong. And I fully expect the judge
to come down hard on the Lehigh Pub, too.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
I'm joking not knowing the ending of the film, not about what
"satisfaction" means. All I said is that satisfaction with the
service surrounding a film someone views isn't defined by whether
or not they left before the film was over.
> > > > but was also dissatisfied with
> > > > the way it was being presented,
> >
> > > Obviously not, huh? Or at least not to a degree that made the movie
> > > unwatchable to him.
> >
> > But what is "satisfaction"? Does it exist when you don't get out of
> > your chair and leave?
>
> Let's say it can be reasonably inferred from that, yeah.
>
I've been less than satisfied (in my opinion) with a film and I
didn't get out of my chair and leave. I didn't ask for my money
back either, but that's a different issue.
> > Some people are not going to get out of their
> > chair and leave even if they are remarkably unhappy.
>
> We can't run our lives and our businesses around those with overly
> complex inner lives.
>
The issue I was taking was with your claim that they found the film
"satisfactory" because they didn't leave.
> > > > with interruptions and missing
> > > > bits. Of course if you go to the one buck show, you should expect
> > > > cracked and spliced content.
> >
> > > What?
> >
> > Whatever you wish to call it. When they don't charge much to see a
> > film. In situations like that, they might generally use old film
> > stock. So you should expect trouble, it's part of the charm.
>
> Right, so, Bondeing aside we would agree you'd need something better
> if you were going to argue the proffered goods were not delivered to
> the customer's satisfaction when a twenty year old movie is shown at a
> discount, especially if you only ask for a refund after you've sat
> through the whole thing.
>
I took no position on whether or not the patron should be given a
refund, partial or otherwise. I took issue with whether you could
tell if he found it satisfactory because he didn't leave.
> > > > > > not that that is or isn't reason to give him his
> > > > > > money back.
> >
> > > > > Or, say, if you ate all of your ice cream, I wouldn't be terribly
> > > > > interested in your complaints about how it wasn't very good.
> >
> > > > I agree that if I wanted a refund, I should have presented the
> > > > product to you for inspection.
> >
> > > And, um...you know, complained about it and stopped eating it after a
> > > couple of bites.
> >
> > Right, but that's not true of "service".
>
> See, I think it is true of service.
>
The scene that would occur if you refused the cooked food because
the waiter was not very helpful seems worse.
> > In that case, are you
> > supposed to stand up and refuse to eat the meal, which you are
> > willing to pay for, because the service is not so good, which you
> > don't want to pay extra for?
>
> Yes. Or at least, you know, go speak to the manager, who will almost
> certainly take your side even when you're so wrong-y you're bonde.
>
My usual rule at restaurants is not to complain at all, just not to
go back ever again. That's not really fair, but the threat that
they'll spit in your food is too great.
> > > > Often shops don't worry so much
> > > > about it, however, if you've got a good argument and if you aren't
> > > > in there daily looking for free fixings.
> >
> > > Which isn't the same thing as being in the right, huh?
> >
> > In a situation where there is a disagreement about the quality of a
> > product or service, we can't just state with any certainty who is
> > right. The idea that a civil issue, which it plainly is, should be
> > raised to the level of a criminal arrest is something I feel can be
> > stated with certainty as being absurd.
>
> I gather "defrauding an innkeeper" is fairly serious, as minor crimes
> go.
>
Even writing a check this is over the amount you have in the
account, if it's not intentional, is usually just a civil issue.
Shoplifting isn't only a civil issue. Regarding not paying for
something, are you just leaving without a word or are you putting
the service at issue? In the instant case, they put the service at
issue and it should have been a civil matter. The courts often side
with businesses if the business has provided a good and even a
service. but if you put the issue into play, a court would need to
decide.
> > > > I think regarding food
> > > > that you should bring back in product that is problematic so that
> > > > the producer and distributor know there's a problem.
> >
> > > You know, and it isn't obvious you're just trying to chisle a free
> > > meal because you weren't raised right or something.
> >
> > I think if the milk I bought goes sour before the sell by date, I
> > should get a new one.
>
> Okay. However, I have to wonder just how sour that milk was if what
> you bring back was an empty milk carton.
>
I think you need to bring some milk back. But even if it's only a
eighth full, the fact that it is sour before the *sell by date*
suggests that the dairy or someone is pushing things to the limit
and beyond. They obviously have an incentive to do this because it
means they can hold milk longer, lowering their costs. Dairies that
are more honest about the shelf life have higher costs. I believe
in incentivizing good behaviour, on all sides, so I do bring back
milk in situations like this. But regarding how much was left, the
last time it was about half the container.
> > Is that "chiselling"?
>
> Absent other information, it would be indistinguishable from
> chisleing, yes.
>
So bringing back sour milk (before the sell by date) is
"chiselling"? I think you are ridiculous in your one-sidedness.
> > I think it's informing
> > the source that there's a problem and it's exacting a cost for
> > their poor quality standards.
>
> Please try to actually respond to the matter at hand and not move off
> into Bonde land.
>
The *exact* issue is whether or not withholding a *tip* to indicate
poor service should or should not be allowable.
> > > > > > > By analogy, therefore, we see the service couldn't have been all that
> > > > > > > bad, now, could it? And refusing to pay for something you recieved and
> > > > > > > consumed, well, that's stealing, isn't it?
> >
> > > > > > If you refused to pay for a thing and just kept it, that would be
> > > > > > stealing.
> >
> > > > > Ok.
> >
> > > > > > It's not stealing to disagree about the quality of
> > > > > > service.
> >
> > > > > Right, Bill...it's stealing to take something without paying for it.
> >
> > > > You are ignoring that you have a right in law to dispute charges
> > > > and dispute the quality of a good.
> >
> > > I think there's a certain "cake and eat it too" question there.
> >
> > If it's worth it to you to fight in court over a few bucks.
>
> Yeah, I'm wondering...here's another more or less analogous example.
> I was watching The People's Court, the one with the Cubana judge?
>
I don't like these shows because they operate like small claims
courts, sans basically the rules. This leaves the judge free to
follow the rules or not as she sees fit.
> These two guys appeared before her, one was some small businessman, a
> car detailer or something, and the other was some guy from a temp
> agency, and basically the case hinged on one guy was suing for unpaid
> wages and the other guy's defense was he shouldn't have to pay that
> guy, he did a lousy job.
>
That's the opposite argument from the one we are discussing. There
may be laws that require someone to be paid.
> The judges found for the plaintiff, though,
> stating that while perhaps the guy didn't do a great job, the owner or
> manager or whatever he was didn't send him home, either, and so the
> defendant owed the defendent for his time.
>
Because he was hired based on his time. There are laws involved,
laws you'd probably not support in large part, but I doubt that you
can really make an exacting comparison of this side to the other
side. If you are not happy with his work, fire him. If you don't
like the service you got from him, that service is still due and
payable? Think about how the customer of the place this guy worked
at feels. If it was repair of something, just fix it again and only
charge for the one time. But if it's service at a restaurant, how
can you do this? You can't. And even in the case of the car repair,
what about the extra time that the car owner doesn't have his car?
> So, I would say that extends to the case here.
>
Which case, the filmgoer or the dissatisfied patron of the
restaurant? I suspect you'll say both. I think that if the filmgoer
wants to take it to court, I couldn't find for either side on
summary judgement because I don't believe the case goes either way
as a matter of law. Regarding the tip business, I think that you
have a contract law conflict. People need constructive notice of
costs. It happens all the time that people sue over what they claim
is crappy construction work. If you disallow this sort of thing,
and it applies to restaurants too although people don't usually sue
because the amount makes it not worth it, then you'd need massive
regulation to try to ensure quality. You don't support that either.
> > > >This is a civil question.
> >
> > > You know, except when its defrauding an innkeeper.
> >
> > It's still a civil question.
>
> You know, except where its a criminal question.
>
It's a civil question even if it is also a criminal one. I don't
know if there are specific laws in the jurisdiction in question
making this a crime. I'll bet that if you put it in play, it's not
a crime though. What if you paid with a credit card and then
disputed the charge?
> > > > > > This is for a court to decide and this plainly should be a
> > > > > > simple civil disagreement.
> >
> > > > > You know, apart from the "defrauding an innkeeper" element.
> >
> > > > If you refuse to pay all the rent for your apartment, say because
> > > > you think you shouldn't because of the rats running around, the
> > > > mould, the green water coming out of the kitchen facet, when it
> > > > runs at all, etc., you will not be arrested.
> >
> > > Sure, okay. If, on the other hand, you refuse to pay for a meal in a
> > > restaurant, you probably will be.
> >
> > It's a civil question.
>
> Well, its not, actually, its a criminal question. There are laws on
> the books in most jurisdictions to the effect if you try to welch out
> on a bill like that you have commited a crime.
>
Please, people "welch out" on paying bills all the time. It's a
civil a question.
> > > > > > > > On a related note ... Until the late sixties, the "standard" tip was
> > > > > > > > 10% of the bill. For a brief period, the "standard" jumped to 12%.
> > > > > > > > In the early seventies, it settled into 15% where it stood for 30+
> > > > > > > > years. Now the greedy waiters want 18%.
> >
> > > > > > > How dare people who do a demanding job under difficult circumstances
> > > > > > > expect to be fairly compemnsated for it.
> >
> > > > > > How dare they play games and not state what the charges are before
> > > > > > you incur them.
> >
> > > > > Oh, no, not this. Bill, do you know how much to tip, or not? Careful,
> > > > > because "I don't know" is...well, just the most recent example of
> > > > > Bonde being Bonde, huh?
> >
> > > > What? Do I know how much to tip? No, I don't.
> >
> > > Tip twenty percent. You especially.
> >
> > Why should I tip at all?
>
> Because you're incentivizing "waiting on me" past indifference.
>
You don't tip most other service people.
> >Just include it in the damn price!
>
> Ah, but when we do that, we see people who think it should be their
> choice to pay the people who wait on them, and think they can just
> leave that part of their bill unpaid if they asked for no lemon in
> their tea and got lemon in their tea and then the waitress solved the
> problem by removing the lemon from the tea, or whatever.
>
I mean include it, like in other industries, in the cost of the
item. If you go to Sears and buy a lawnmower, you don't tip the guy
selling you the lawnmower because he's paid by Sears using funds
that are included in the price of the lawnmower, what a concept!
> > > > I think that "tip"
> > > > should be something I do if I want to do it. So I completely
> > > > disagree with the forced tipping nonsense. That I have to follow it
> > > > where it is the convention, I accept, of course.
> >
> > > Eh, you know...you could stiff someone on their tip
> >
> > "Tip" means extra.
>
> Also, when you go to a museum and see "suggested donation," I
> understand that's not so much they're thinking, you know, no pressure
> or anything, but it would be nice of you to leave a little gift so
> much as just that's what they're expecting you to pay to get in to see
> whatever.
>
If the "donation" is mandatory, that's a scam too.
> > Include the "tip" in the damn price of the food.
>
> But it's not the food, its the service.
>
Fine, I'll bus my own table and grab the food from the kitchen.
> > > and not be any
> > > worse than the jerk most people already think you are, you know,
> >
> > I'm a nice guy here and elsewhere.
>
> Through the bonde-glass.
>
In what way am I not nice here?
> > You are usually hardly polite,
>
> Evil to him who thinks evil
>
I'm not sure what that means.
> > which is why I wonder why you are defending paying tips.
>
> Because I am practially spilling over with empathy, except for, you
> know, total shitheads.
>
Why? In a capitalist society, the incentive should be to do a good
job and earn more money. If you require tipping, that divorces the
job from the pay.
> > I would
> > have thought you'd be all for stiffing the waiter when they go for
> > a smoke instead of getting you your grub.
>
> Somehow, they don't do that, but then I tip a lot, and even that I
> leverage with little psychological nudges, trying to evoke, you know,
> money you got from gramma at Christmas time?
>
Huh?
> > > unless it appears as an item on a bill, apparently.
> >
> > But since you aren't given the bill until after the meal, there is
> > a question of constructive notice.
>
> No, there isn't; that the charge would be included in the bill was
> plainly stated in advance of the transaction.
>
> Please stop being such a retarded liar.
>
#begin quote original article
The menu clearly states, "18 percent gratuity added to check of
parties of 6 of more," and a similar message is printed on
receipts, a
pub employee said this morning.
#end quote
So it was on the bill, which you get afterwards, and "clearly"
written somewhere on the menu. I have seen such things and
"clearly" isn't always the case. People might not even look
carefully at all of a menu. The extra charge is only for larger
groups. Why they'd charge more for larger groups isn't clear at all
since they make more money from larger groups, presumably.
> > > Still, I think
> > > even there, there's a good case for "moral equivalent" of stealing.
> >
> > I believe that the whole tip thing is a con but even aside from
> > that, the issue is purely civil.
>
> Still, I think, even there, there's a good case for "moral
> equivalent" of stealing. If something in a restaurant isn't to your
> liking, you apparently have to pay your bill anyway, and then can
> perhaps sue later. If that thing is the service, well..the fact they
> won't have you arrested doesn't mean it isn't wrong, and if "included
> service charge" appeared on the bill, they could have you arrested,
> huh?
>
I think that a cop can arrest you for anything he wants to, even
made up charges. The cop has this physical ability because he has a
gun and the colour of the law. To counter this, consider The Queen
v. Tooley, 92 Eng. Rep. 349 (1710) which stands for the idea that
you can resist an unlawful arrest. But who's to know that it is
unlawful beforehand and what if you are wrong? The court will
decide and if you are wrong about it being unlawful, you are liable
for that. So I would say, similarly, you can dispute charges and
let a court decide their validity. If you are wrong, you would
likely be paying a much higher price than you'd otherwise pay.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
plausible prose man wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 3:36 am, Bob Ward <bobw...@email.com> wrote:
> > >> It certainly is a criminal case, as it stands they're charged with
> > >>"defrauding an inn keeper" or something like that. They might well
> > >>convince whoever to drop those charges, but...
> >
> > If the innkeeper is charging a "gratuity" for service not rendered,
>
> Obviously the service was rendered.
>
But there were 10,000 screaming cockroaches that invaded the bed
that night. You got zero sleep. All you could do is squish them and
cower in a corner, a huddled mess. It was horrible. You would like
a discount. The innkeeper says you got the room overnight, you
didn't leave and sleep under a bridge, you owe for the full
freight.
> > just who is defrauding who?
>
> You are defrauding everyone you try to pass yourself off as a person
> to.
>
There's one of those examples of you being unfriendly.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
plausible prose man wrote:
>
> On Nov 21, 5:35 pm, "Lesmond" <lesm...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:19:34 -0800 (PST), plausible prose man wrote:
> > >On Nov 20, 1:26�pm, NadCixelsyd <nadcixel...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> Rather than a criminal case, the students could argue that this is a
> > >> civil case.
> >
> > > It certainly is a criminal case, as it stands they're charged with
> > >"defrauding an inn keeper" or something like that. They might well
> > >convince whoever to drop those charges, but...
> >
> > >>�With a required 18% gratuity, one should expect some
> > >> level of service.
> >
> > > I am sure they recieved some level of service.
> >
> > >>�When the service was not provided, they ceased
> > >> their obligation to pay for it.
> >
> > > So, my friend and I we, went to see a midnight showing of "Raiders of
> > >the Lost Ark" a few years ago, about the time the first of the most
> > >recent set of Star Wars movies came out. This was obviously an older
> > >copy of the movie they were showing; the film had several noticeable
> > >gaps of many seconds in the beginning where it had broken and been
> > >spliced, and it was scratchy throughout.
> >
> > > Dave, that's his name, he's more than a bit of a chisler, so on the
> > >way out, he asked me if I thought we should try to get out money back
> > >by complaining to the management about the quality of the print. I, of
> > >course, was fairly mortified that he was even asking, since obviously
> > >the movie was to his satisfaction, what with the way he sat through
> > >the whole thing.
> >
> > > By analogy, therefore, we see the service couldn't have been all that
> > >bad, now, could it? And refusing to pay for something you recieved and
> > >consumed, well, that's stealing, isn't it?
> >
> > They weren't refusing to pay for the food, just the tip.
>
> I understand that. I think refusing to pay at that point is at least
> a form of theft, and in this case quite literally so.
>
It is a disagreement about the charges. I can't believe that you'd
not admit to anything like that ever being possible.
> > Which I agree
> > should be based on service received.
>
> I don't disagree with that, exactly, except to state that one can
> reasonably infer the service recieved was satisfactory, since the
> parties involved apparently seemingly didn't decide to welch out on
> part of their bill until after the plates were taken away and they
> were sitting back, patting their ol' tum tums, suffering from what we
> call, "the -itis."
>
Maybe they didn't realize that they'd be charged a forced gratuity.
A lot of this comes down to where Bob Ward usually insists against
the consumer, that they didn't read their contract carefully
enough.
> I think it at least equally likely, and will simply not entertain any
> discussion otherwise, they decided their dignity was somehow affronted
> when it turned out the tip was included, because, they imagine, such
> things are supposed to be a voluntary reward for exemplary service,
> and so refused to pay on a stand of principle.
>
I think they thought that but not to that point, instead to the
point only that they shouldn't pay extra for really bad service.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Binyamin Dissen wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:35:41 +0000 "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
> recirculation' )" <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :>plausible prose man wrote:
>
> [ much snippage ]
>
> :>> and not be any
> :>> worse than the jerk most people already think you are, you know,
> >
> :>I'm a nice guy here and elsewhere. You are usually hardly polite,
> :>which is why I wonder why you are defending paying tips. I would
> :>have thought you'd be all for stiffing the waiter when they go for
> :>a smoke instead of getting you your grub.
>
> Perhaps PPM is a quite poor waiter who can only get tips if they are forced?
>
These issues have been discussed before and PPM seems to take this
position consistently. I don't know why. It certainly seems
anti-libertarian.
Mark Steese
news:4B098B0F...@yahoo.co.uk:
> plausible prose man wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 22, 3:36 am, Bob Ward <bobw...@email.com> wrote:
>> > >> It certainly is a criminal case, as it stands they're charged
>> > >> with
>> > >>"defrauding an inn keeper" or something like that. They might
>> > >>well convince whoever to drop those charges, but...
>> >
>> > If the innkeeper is charging a "gratuity" for service not rendered,
>>
>> Obviously the service was rendered.
>>
> But there were 10,000 screaming cockroaches that invaded the bed
> that night. You got zero sleep. All you could do is squish them and
> cower in a corner, a huddled mess. It was horrible. You would like
> a discount. The innkeeper says you got the room overnight, you
> didn't leave and sleep under a bridge, you owe for the full
> freight.
If you thought there were ten thousand screaming cockroaches in your bed
and you didn't leave, you were pretty obviously stoned out of your gourd,
and I fail to see how the fact that you had a bad trip is the innkeeper's
fault.
--
Mark Steese
=======================================================================
PS: Your second question, you thought I forgot? I didn't. I never found
the banana slug. - William Least Heat-Moon
plausible prose man
recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> plausible prose man wrote:
>
> > On Nov 22, 3:58 am, Binyamin Dissen <postin...@dissensoftware.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:35:41 +0000 "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
> > > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > :>plausible prose man wrote:
>
> > > [ much snippage ]
>
> > > :>> and not be any
> > > :>> worse than the jerk most people already think you are, you know,
>
> > > :>I'm a nice guy here and elsewhere. You are usually hardly polite,
> > > :>which is why I wonder why you are defending paying tips. I would
> > > :>have thought you'd be all for stiffing the waiter when they go for
> > > :>a smoke instead of getting you your grub.
>
> > > Perhaps PPM is a quite poor waiter who can only get tips if they are forced?
>
> > Perhaps Binyan is a thief who thinks he can welch out on a service
> > charge if, say, there was a slice of lemon in his ice tea.
>
> I'm somewhat taken aback by your odd concern about the welfare of
> wait staff.
It's not an issue of "concerned about their welfare;" I dont much
care what they do with the money they're due when they get it. I just
believe in property and contracts.
> You don't show such worry about people who own
> businesses that are crushed by the likes of Walmart.
Right, well...if someone comes up with a better business model, or is
just a better waiter, so much for the poor waiters. That's hardly
analogous, though, is it?
> You also don't
> seem to care about consumer rights.
You're begging the question there.
> And it's all so bogus anyway.
What you wrote above sure is.
> If you want people who work in restaurants to get paid well, just
> pay them more.
Or pay them in the first place. Well, I do that, Bonde, and I think
you should too. I feel rather strongly anyone who doesn't leave a tip
is something of a thief. If there's a problem with the service, well,
talk to the manager. You know, unless it's something silly and you
know it like they (horrors!) put a slice of lemon in your tea when you
asked for no lemon and when you complained, they just took the lemon
out.
plausible prose man
recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> These issues have been discussed before and PPM seems to take this
> position consistently. I don't know why.
That's because you're stupid.
>It certainly seems
> anti-libertarian.
That's because you have no more understanding of what is libertarian
than anything else.
plausible prose man
Right, entirely sensisble.
> I went specifically to see him and paid the money to
> see him. All night they made announcements that he would be playing.
Okay. So, a certain expectation as to what would be delivered was,
um...delivered, gotcha.
> At the time he was supposed to take the stage, the announcement was made that
> he would not be appearing. A few of us went to the box office to get our
> money back. We were told that we had enjoyed an entire evening of music and
> we didn't deserve our money back.
That's analogous, I don't think.
> The girl even said, "If you weren't having
> fun, you wouldn't have stayed all night."
That's not false, exactly, and so perhaps you aren't due a full
refund, but it would seem they were welching out on the thing they're
offering.
> But...I had stayed in expectation of seeing the performer I had come to see
> and whom they had kept insisting would be there. I mean, I wasn't even going
> to keep the money, I was going to donate the entire amount to the charity
> instead of letting this lying, thieving venue take their cut. But her
> argument was that if I had stayed, they had earned their money.
Well, she's wrong, kind of like the people who don't want to pay
their service charge.
> Happily I was working for an attorney at the time. One call from him and I
> had my money back. They knew they were wrong. And I fully expect the judge
> to come down hard on the Lehigh Pub, too.
I don't think the situation is entirely analogous. Neill Young, or
whoever, did come on stage an hour late, and he was just drunk or
otherwise played a crappy show, and you stick around through the
delays and watch the whole thing and its only after the fake encores
you decide you were ill-used such that you're due a refund.
You know, that's taking the defendent's stpry at face value. I find it
equally likely, as I said, they're just trying to welch out on an
included charge because they think they can, and the service was
satisfactory in an ordinary way.
plausible prose man
I think it pretty easy to intuit or infer from the context of this
discussion that "satisfactory" here means something like "having met
the requirements implied by whatever warranty of purpose," or more
specifically, "watchable." It's pretty obviously watchable if you,
well, watched it, right? See how that works? I do not believe, nor do
I think a reasonable person believes he goes to the movies with the
expectation the movie they'll be seeing will be a genre defining
classic, just that it be, you know, basically watchable, sufficiently
engaging you'll want to see how it comes out, something like that.
>All I said is that satisfaction with the
> service surrounding a film someone views isn't defined by whether
> or not they left before the film was over.
Yes it is, in this context.
> > > > > but was also dissatisfied with
> > > > > the way it was being presented,
>
> > > > Obviously not, huh? Or at least not to a degree that made the movie
> > > > unwatchable to him.
>
> > > But what is "satisfaction"? Does it exist when you don't get out of
> > > your chair and leave?
>
> > Let's say it can be reasonably inferred from that, yeah.
>
> I've been less than satisfied (in my opinion) with a film and I
> didn't get out of my chair and leave.
You're, perhaps unintentionally, equivocating on satisfactory.
> I didn't ask for my money
> back either, but that's a different issue.
Again, your case is probably better that the food in a restaurant is
inedible if you don't, you know, eat it. You might still get a comp
there, but...that's the manager or whoever showing you every courtesy,
not so much a contractual issue.
> > > Some people are not going to get out of their
> > > chair and leave even if they are remarkably unhappy.
>
> > We can't run our lives and our businesses around those with overly
> > complex inner lives.
>
> The issue I was taking was with your claim that they found the film
> "satisfactory" because they didn't leave.
I have no idea why. Well, actually, I do, but it doesn't speak well
for you. "satisfactory" in this case just means "watchable" or
something like that, not "good" in a more active way, and yes, if you
watched something, I have to infer you found it watchable. Any
argument from you past that point reminds me of...well, one time my
mother and I were arguing about how to drive home from some place, I
like the way I go because, while its not the shortest route, it
involves the fewest stop signs or traffic lights or turns. My mom
doesn't like that way because, well, and here she said "I just don't
need a reason," to which I replied, "well, doesn't that make
you...unreasonable?" and her face caught this expression of "I have
lost every argument forever, haven't I?" before she blurted out "no!"
like a little kid denying what even he knows is so obviously true.
> > > > > with interruptions and missing
> > > > > bits. Of course if you go to the one buck show, you should expect
> > > > > cracked and spliced content.
>
> > > > What?
>
> > > Whatever you wish to call it. When they don't charge much to see a
> > > film. In situations like that, they might generally use old film
> > > stock. So you should expect trouble, it's part of the charm.
>
> > Right, so, Bondeing aside we would agree you'd need something better
> > if you were going to argue the proffered goods were not delivered to
> > the customer's satisfaction when a twenty year old movie is shown at a
> > discount, especially if you only ask for a refund after you've sat
> > through the whole thing.
>
> I took no position on whether or not the patron should be given a
> refund, partial or otherwise. I took issue with whether you could
> tell if he found it satisfactory because he didn't leave.
Yes, well...making allowances for people with overly complex inner
lives, such as yourself, is an undue burden upon we the reasonable,
and we all wish you guys would knock it off.
> > > > > > > not that that is or isn't reason to give him his
> > > > > > > money back.
>
> > > > > > Or, say, if you ate all of your ice cream, I wouldn't be terribly
> > > > > > interested in your complaints about how it wasn't very good.
>
> > > > > I agree that if I wanted a refund, I should have presented the
> > > > > product to you for inspection.
>
> > > > And, um...you know, complained about it and stopped eating it after a
> > > > couple of bites.
>
> > > Right, but that's not true of "service".
>
> > See, I think it is true of service.
>
> The scene that would occur if you refused the cooked food because
> the waiter was not very helpful seems worse.
Not at all. The manager is often open to such complaints. "Where's my
food?" and "this is taking forever!" and "you know what, just charge
us for the drinks we drank, and we'll be on our way."
> > > In that case, are you
> > > supposed to stand up and refuse to eat the meal, which you are
> > > willing to pay for, because the service is not so good, which you
> > > don't want to pay extra for?
>
> > Yes. Or at least, you know, go speak to the manager, who will almost
> > certainly take your side even when you're so wrong-y you're bonde.
>
> My usual rule at restaurants is not to complain at all, just not to
> go back ever again.
Also, I hope you tipped the waiter, since if you don't you're kind of
a thief.
> That's not really fair, but the threat that
> they'll spit in your food is too great.
They don't spit in your food. I mean, I won't tell you this has
absolutely never ever happened, but its up there with spitting on
returned veterans or razor blades in halloween candy. And if they do
spit in your food, well...they also sneeze all over their hands or rub
their nose or play with their hair and then give you your plate.
> > > > > Often shops don't worry so much
> > > > > about it, however, if you've got a good argument and if you aren't
> > > > > in there daily looking for free fixings.
>
> > > > Which isn't the same thing as being in the right, huh?
>
> > > In a situation where there is a disagreement about the quality of a
> > > product or service, we can't just state with any certainty who is
> > > right. The idea that a civil issue, which it plainly is, should be
> > > raised to the level of a criminal arrest is something I feel can be
> > > stated with certainty as being absurd.
>
> > I gather "defrauding an innkeeper" is fairly serious, as minor crimes
> > go.
>
> Even writing a check this is over the amount you have in the
> account, if it's not intentional, is usually just a civil issue.
Which is very interesting, but "defrauding an innkeeper" is fairly
serious, as minor crimes go, just about like writing a bad check.
> Shoplifting isn't only a civil issue. Regarding not paying for
> something, are you just leaving without a word or are you putting
> the service at issue? In the instant case, they put the service at
> issue and it should have been a civil matter.
And yet, it turns out to be something more like defrauding an
innkeeper.
> The courts often side
> with businesses if the business has provided a good and even a
> service.
Like in this case, as we can infer from the actions of the patrons.
> but if you put the issue into play, a court would need to
> decide.
>
> > > > > I think regarding food
> > > > > that you should bring back in product that is problematic so that
> > > > > the producer and distributor know there's a problem.
>
> > > > You know, and it isn't obvious you're just trying to chisle a free
> > > > meal because you weren't raised right or something.
>
> > > I think if the milk I bought goes sour before the sell by date, I
> > > should get a new one.
>
> > Okay. However, I have to wonder just how sour that milk was if what
> > you bring back was an empty milk carton.
>
> I think you need to bring some milk back.
I think you need to bring back most of the milk.
> But even if it's only a
> eighth full, the fact that it is sour before the *sell by date*
> suggests that the dairy or someone is pushing things to the limit
> and beyond.
I don't know that that's true; I think a small amount of milk in a
container like that which has been opened and perhaps drunk out and
kept next to who knows what in a refridgerator of unknown temperature
of would go bad faster than a full, sealed carton kept in a cooler
which meets whatever the state inspector's standards are.
> They obviously have an incentive to do this because it
> means they can hold milk longer, lowering their costs.
Of course, they also have an incentive not to do this, since it would
mean loss of goodwill and business to a company that does no such
thing and lets you know.
> Dairies that
> are more honest about the shelf life have higher costs.
which they pass on to you and obviously people are willing to pay
more for percieved quality.
> I believe
> in incentivizing good behaviour, on all sides, so I do bring back
> milk in situations like this. But regarding how much was left, the
> last time it was about half the container.
The last time? This has happened more than once?
> > > Is that "chiselling"?
>
> > Absent other information, it would be indistinguishable from
> > chisleing, yes.
>
> So bringing back sour milk (before the sell by date) is
> "chiselling"?
Maybe.
> I think you are ridiculous in your one-sidedness.
I think you are ridiculous in your intentional point missing and your
far-fetched counter examples.
> > > I think it's informing
> > > the source that there's a problem and it's exacting a cost for
> > > their poor quality standards.
>
> > Please try to actually respond to the matter at hand and not move off
> > into Bonde land.
>
> The *exact* issue is whether or not withholding a *tip* to indicate
> poor service should or should not be allowable.
I don't think it should, given the reality of how waiters are paid in
this country and the expectations someone has when they begin waiting
on a customer.
> > > > > > > > By analogy, therefore, we see the service couldn't have been all that
> > > > > > > > bad, now, could it? And refusing to pay for something you recieved and
> > > > > > > > consumed, well, that's stealing, isn't it?
>
> > > > > > > If you refused to pay for a thing and just kept it, that would be
> > > > > > > stealing.
>
> > > > > > Ok.
>
> > > > > > > It's not stealing to disagree about the quality of
> > > > > > > service.
>
> > > > > > Right, Bill...it's stealing to take something without paying for it.
>
> > > > > You are ignoring that you have a right in law to dispute charges
> > > > > and dispute the quality of a good.
>
> > > > I think there's a certain "cake and eat it too" question there.
>
> > > If it's worth it to you to fight in court over a few bucks.
>
> > Yeah, I'm wondering...here's another more or less analogous example.
> > I was watching The People's Court, the one with the Cubana judge?
>
> I don't like these shows because they operate like small claims
> courts, sans basically the rules.
Small claims courts in general operate sans basically the rules; its
you, some ghost of the UCC or the state's version thereof, and the
judges own feelings of common sense and fairness, indeed, often into
state court you see the black letter of the law bent around some judge
acting like the oldest regular at your favorite tap room
>.This leaves the judge free to
> follow the rules or not as she sees fit.
Anyway...
> > These two guys appeared before her, one was some small businessman, a
> > car detailer or something, and the other was some guy from a temp
> > agency, and basically the case hinged on one guy was suing for unpaid
> > wages and the other guy's defense was he shouldn't have to pay that
> > guy, he did a lousy job.
>
> That's the opposite argument from the one we are discussing.
No, that's precisely what we were discussing. You are being a
retarded liar, again.
>There
> may be laws that require someone to be paid.
And there certainly are laws that require you to pay your bill in a
restaurant.
> > The judges found for the plaintiff, though,
> > stating that while perhaps the guy didn't do a great job, the owner or
> > manager or whatever he was didn't send him home, either, and so the
> > defendant owed the defendent for his time.
>
> Because he was hired based on his time. There are laws involved,
> laws you'd probably not support in large part, but I doubt that you
> can really make an exacting comparison of this side to the other
> side. If you are not happy with his work, fire him.
What?
> If you don't
> like the service you got from him, that service is still due and
> payable?
Its more an issue of deciding if you're telling the truth about
"liking" the service, or at least, how much you have to "like" a
service before you pay for it.
> Think about how the customer of the place this guy worked
> at feels. If it was repair of something, just fix it again and only
> charge for the one time.
that has no bearing on the matter at hand
Lesmond
>On Nov 22, 1:49ÿpm, "Lesmond" <lesm...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> But...I had stayed in expectation of seeing the performer I had come to see
>> and whom they had kept insisting would be there. ÿI mean, I wasn't even going
>> to keep the money, I was going to donate the entire amount to the charity
>> instead of letting this lying, thieving venue take their cut. ÿBut her
>> argument was that if I had stayed, they had earned their money.
>
> Well, she's wrong, kind of like the people who don't want to pay
>their service charge.
>
>
>> Happily I was working for an attorney at the time. ÿOne call from him and I
>> had my money back. ÿThey knew they were wrong. ÿAnd I fully expect the judge
>> to come down hard on the Lehigh Pub, too.
>
> I don't think the situation is entirely analogous.
I don't either, it's just that the argument used on me was the same one
you're putting forth. I don't agree with it in either situation.
>Neill Young,
If only.
or
>whoever, did come on stage an hour late, and he was just drunk or
>otherwise played a crappy show, and you stick around through the
>delays and watch the whole thing and its only after the fake encores
>you decide you were ill-used such that you're due a refund.
>
>You know, that's taking the defendent's stpry at face value.
Sure. I don't have any reason not to.
I find it
>equally likely, as I said, they're just trying to welch out on an
>included charge because they think they can, and the service was
>satisfactory in an ordinary way.
I would think if that were the case they would have paid when the cops showed
up.
Since it's local to me I've heard a lot more details about it. They're even
claiming to have paid for a salad they never received and the bar isn't
denying it. And every time they went out for a smoke, their waitress was out
there and they would ask her about their food. So, perhaps they antagonized
her, I don't know.
Richard R. Hershberger
> On Nov 20, 1:50 pm, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 1:26 pm, NadCixelsyd <nadcixel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > Rather than a criminal case, the students could argue that this is a
> > > level of service. When the service was not provided, they ceased
> > > their obligation to pay for it.
>
> > quote clearly states that the 18% is a "gratuity". Unless the menu
> > also provides a definition of that term the dictionary definition
> > applies. The sole definition in Merriam Webster Online is:
>
> > ": something given voluntarily or beyond obligation usually for some
> > service; especially : tip"
>
> > So by definition there is no obligation to pay a gratuity.
>
> You know, unless some manager at a restaurant decided it was a nicer
> way to say "service charge" and they put it on your bill and say
> you're obligated to pay that much.
No, I don't know that. Goods and (bad) services were provided at an
agreed upon price, printed in the menu. The menu also stipulated that
a "gratuity" would be added under certain circumstances. You seem to
be positing that management can later declare that it wasn't a
gratuity at all. It must be lovely to be a service provider in your
world, where one can change the terms of a contract retroactively.
>
> > I would sue.
>
> Huh. I hope you spend a lot of money and lose anyway. Indeed, under
> the legal system I favor, I'd expect you to pay the costs of defending
> against your suit when you lose anyway.
Ooh! Ooh! Will you be the defense lawyer? That's my best of all
possible worlds!
Richard R. Hershberger
Richard R. Hershberger
What was that definition again? Oh, yes: "something given
voluntarily or beyond obligation". You have yet to explain how
refusing to pay "something given voluntarily or beyond obligation" can
be theft, beyond your willingness to play "lets pretend".
> > Which I agree
> > should be based on service received.
>
> I don't disagree with that, exactly, except to state that one can
> reasonably infer the service recieved was satisfactory, since the
> parties involved apparently seemingly didn't decide to welch out on
> part of their bill until after the plates were taken away and they
> were sitting back, patting their ol' tum tums, suffering from what we
> call, "the -itis."
>
> I think it at least equally likely, and will simply not entertain any
> discussion otherwise, they decided their dignity was somehow affronted
> when it turned out the tip was included, because, they imagine, such
> things are supposed to be a voluntary reward for exemplary service,
> and so refused to pay on a stand of principle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
plausible prose man
wrote:
That's magical, Rich. You know, for a person who wants to get all
anti-griciean on every logic puzzle and "Ask Marilyn" anyone posts
here, suddenly a word means what the dictionary you looked into says
it means, no more, no less, said definition holding in all situations,
every where.
> Oh, yes: "something given
> voluntarily or beyond obligation". You have yet to explain how
> refusing to pay "something given voluntarily or beyond obligation" can
> be theft, beyond your willingness to play "lets pretend".
Oh, that's easy. There was a thing in the menu that said they'd
include it in your bill under certain circumstances.
plausible prose man
> On Nov 20, 3:24 pm, plausible prose man <Georgefha...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 1:50 pm, "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhe...@acme.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 20, 1:26 pm, NadCixelsyd <nadcixel...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Rather than a criminal case, the students could argue that this is a
> > > > civil case. With a required 18% gratuity, one should expect some
> > > > level of service. When the service was not provided, they ceased
> > > > their obligation to pay for it.
>
> > > This is assuming they had any obligation in the first place. The menu
> > > quote clearly states that the 18% is a "gratuity". Unless the menu
> > > also provides a definition of that term the dictionary definition
> > > applies. The sole definition in Merriam Webster Online is:
>
> > > ": something given voluntarily or beyond obligation usually for some
> > > service; especially : tip"
>
> > > So by definition there is no obligation to pay a gratuity.
>
> > You know, unless some manager at a restaurant decided it was a nicer
> > way to say "service charge" and they put it on your bill and say
> > you're obligated to pay that much.
>
> No, I don't know that.
Yes, you actually, you do.
> Goods and (bad) services were provided at an
> agreed upon price, printed in the menu. The menu also stipulated that
> a "gratuity" would be added under certain circumstances.
Right, okay...
"a sum of money, often a percentage of the total billed, given to a
server, porter, etc. for a service or favor; tip"
> You seem to
> be positing that management can later declare that it wasn't a
> gratuity at all.
That's between the management and the servers; someone said something
to the effect waiters often never actually see any of that included
tip, at which point its not really a tip at all.
Here, however, I am taking the restaurant at face value, especially
since this, at least, doesn't figure into it.
> It must be lovely to be a service provider in your
> world, where one can change the terms of a contract retroactively.
Why do you lie like that, Rich?
> > > I would sue.
>
> > Huh. I hope you spend a lot of money and lose anyway. Indeed, under
> > the legal system I favor, I'd expect you to pay the costs of defending
> > against your suit when you lose anyway.
>
> Ooh! Ooh! Will you be the defense lawyer?
Yeah, not only that, but I'll take side bets on how long it takes the
judge to throw your case out of court, since you're basically suing
for the right to steal.
plausible prose man
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:04:22 -0800 (PST), plausible prose man wrote:
> >On Nov 22, 1:49ÿpm, "Lesmond" <lesm...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> But...I had stayed in expectation of seeing the performer I had come to see
> >> and whom they had kept insisting would be there. ÿI mean, I wasn't even going
> >> to keep the money, I was going to donate the entire amount to the charity
> >> instead of letting this lying, thieving venue take their cut. ÿBut her
> >> argument was that if I had stayed, they had earned their money.
>
> > Well, she's wrong, kind of like the people who don't want to pay
> >their service charge.
>
> >> Happily I was working for an attorney at the time. ÿOne call from him and I
> >> had my money back. ÿThey knew they were wrong. ÿAnd I fully expect the judge
> >> to come down hard on the Lehigh Pub, too.
>
> > I don't think the situation is entirely analogous.
>
> I don't either, it's just that the argument used on me was the same one
> you're putting forth.
It's not really the same argument if the cases aren't analogous, is
it?
> I don't agree with it in either situation.
So you're over on the bonde side, where you can eat the whole meal,
lick the plates clean, unbutton the top button of your trousers, sit
back, pat the ol' tum-tum and say "oh, man" a few times, and then
except people to believe you when you say the food was so horrible you
shouldn't have to pay for it?
Riiiiiight.
> >Neill Young,
>
> If only.
Well, whoever.
> or
>
> >whoever, did come on stage an hour late, and he was just drunk or
> >otherwise played a crappy show, and you stick around through the
> >delays and watch the whole thing and its only after the fake encores
> >you decide you were ill-used such that you're due a refund.
>
> >You know, that's taking the defendent's stpry at face value.
>
> Sure. I don't have any reason not to.
Yeah, well, who knows? I wasn't there. I will tell you, though, for
every bad waiter, there are plenty of Bob Wards.
> I find it
>
> >equally likely, as I said, they're just trying to welch out on an
> >included charge because they think they can, and the service was
> >satisfactory in an ordinary way.
>
> I would think if that were the case they would have paid when the cops showed
> up.
I'm not at all sure why they didn't even if what they said is true,
since getting out of jail is well worth 15 dollars or whatever it is.
> Since it's local to me I've heard a lot more details about it. They're even
> claiming to have paid for a salad they never received and the bar isn't
> denying it.
Yeah, that happens, huh? Sure, okay, you know, you talk to someone
about that, they take it off your bill. Not a big deal. In fact, some
versions of the story I've seen have the bar saying they'd comp the
check, so I tell you...this mystery keeps getting more mysterious.
> And every time they went out for a smoke, their waitress was out
> there and they would ask her about their food. So, perhaps they antagonized
> her, I don't know.
Yeah, I don't know...I was reading through a message board, and not
everyone posting, but a few people, were really angry at the concept
of included tipping. I'm sure that would really burn Bob Ward's ass,
right? I mean, he'd start off looking for something there. Do you
doubt what I say? I think the real Barbara had his number when she
said:
"At best it's a cheapskate attitude, too often it's a "I'm the kind of
person
who reacts to any situation that gives me even the slighest notion of
perceived
power (such as having a restaurant assign someone to wait on you) by
taking
that edge and wielding it like a club". Cheap is bad, but making sure
the
waitron *knows* that they'll have to really be on their toes to get a
buck from
you, cause you're smarter and not as easily cowed as their average
customer is
really odious.
Leave a damn tip, or complain to the manager.
Barbara - "
And plus, there's a girl involved, and often we hold to principle
tighter in front of our women they we would if there wasn't someone we
might see for years there.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
plausible prose man wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 3:20 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
> recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > These issues have been discussed before and PPM seems to take this
> > position consistently. I don't know why.
>
> That's because you're stupid.
>
I don't believe that's the reason.
> >It certainly seems
> > anti-libertarian.
>
> That's because you have no more understanding of what is libertarian
> than anything else.
>
Libertarian would be market inclusive.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
I can't define that entirely by whether or not someone leaves their
seat mid movie. You apparently can, as well as the other analogous
situations, say that you didn't like the table service at a
restaurant and didn't immediately blow a cork, therefore you were
happy enough and should pay whatever the claim you owe. As is often
the case, I think you are full of crap. It isn't a criminal
question when two parties disagree about how much they owe each
other. That, in fact, is the entire "at law" aspect of the civil
legal system.
> It's pretty obviously watchable if you,
> well, watched it, right? See how that works? I do not believe, nor do
> I think a reasonable person believes he goes to the movies with the
> expectation the movie they'll be seeing will be a genre defining
> classic, just that it be, you know, basically watchable, sufficiently
> engaging you'll want to see how it comes out, something like that.
>
My entire point is that you can't define "satisfaction" by simply
noting that someone didn't immediately negatively respond to the
stimulus by leaving the area. It takes some time, after all, for
frogs to leap out of a heated pot.
> >All I said is that satisfaction with the
> > service surrounding a film someone views isn't defined by whether
> > or not they left before the film was over.
>
> Yes it is, in this context.
>
That's your opinion, I disagree with you.
> > > > > > but was also dissatisfied with
> > > > > > the way it was being presented,
> >
> > > > > Obviously not, huh? Or at least not to a degree that made the movie
> > > > > unwatchable to him.
> >
> > > > But what is "satisfaction"? Does it exist when you don't get out of
> > > > your chair and leave?
> >
> > > Let's say it can be reasonably inferred from that, yeah.
> >
> > I've been less than satisfied (in my opinion) with a film and I
> > didn't get out of my chair and leave.
>
> You're, perhaps unintentionally, equivocating on satisfactory.
>
The problem is that you've defined, ipso facto, "satisfactory" to
mean that the person didn't immediately leave the area upon the
negative stimulus. That's how you've defined it, therefore within
that definition, it is trivially correct. I disagree about the
definition.
> > I didn't ask for my money
> > back either, but that's a different issue.
>
> Again, your case is probably better that the food in a restaurant is
> inedible if you don't, you know, eat it. You might still get a comp
> there, but...that's the manager or whoever showing you every courtesy,
> not so much a contractual issue.
>
One of the arguments for adhesion contracts is that the business
can then exclude anyone it doesn't want to "satisfy", because
perhaps they are "chiselers", while satisfying anyone that is
deemed worth bothering with.
> > > > Some people are not going to get out of their
> > > > chair and leave even if they are remarkably unhappy.
> >
> > > We can't run our lives and our businesses around those with overly
> > > complex inner lives.
> >
> > The issue I was taking was with your claim that they found the film
> > "satisfactory" because they didn't leave.
>
> I have no idea why. Well, actually, I do, but it doesn't speak well
> for you. "satisfactory" in this case just means "watchable" or
> something like that, not "good" in a more active way, and yes, if you
> watched something, I have to infer you found it watchable.
>
How do you know what "satisfactory" means? Firstly, what we are
seeking here is a legal definition because if the two disagree, it
is a civil lawsuit that will settle it (or a quick draw competition
if the law isn't available). So can you cite case law for the
proposition that "satisfactory" means what you think it means?
> Any
> argument from you past that point reminds me of...well, one time my
> mother and I were arguing about how to drive home from some place, I
> like the way I go because, while its not the shortest route, it
> involves the fewest stop signs or traffic lights or turns. My mom
> doesn't like that way because, well, and here she said "I just don't
> need a reason," to which I replied, "well, doesn't that make
> you...unreasonable?" and her face caught this expression of "I have
> lost every argument forever, haven't I?" before she blurted out "no!"
> like a little kid denying what even he knows is so obviously true.
>
I think that in that case, you've taken two meaning of "reason" and
"reasonable" and conflated them. She was "unreasonable", therefore
she lost the argument. But she doesn't need to express a reason for
not liking a route to not like the route.
> > > > > > with interruptions and missing
> > > > > > bits. Of course if you go to the one buck show, you should expect
> > > > > > cracked and spliced content.
> >
> > > > > What?
> >
> > > > Whatever you wish to call it. When they don't charge much to see a
> > > > film. In situations like that, they might generally use old film
> > > > stock. So you should expect trouble, it's part of the charm.
> >
> > > Right, so, Bondeing aside we would agree you'd need something better
> > > if you were going to argue the proffered goods were not delivered to
> > > the customer's satisfaction when a twenty year old movie is shown at a
> > > discount, especially if you only ask for a refund after you've sat
> > > through the whole thing.
> >
> > I took no position on whether or not the patron should be given a
> > refund, partial or otherwise. I took issue with whether you could
> > tell if he found it satisfactory because he didn't leave.
>
> Yes, well...making allowances for people with overly complex inner
> lives, such as yourself, is an undue burden upon we the reasonable,
> and we all wish you guys would knock it off.
>
So it's overly complex to take issue with your trivial reasoning
about what "satisfactory" means? I might hate a dinner but never
say anything to the restaurant. I obviously didn't find that dinner
"satisfactory". To claim that there is a necessary connection
between my instant response to the meal and my "satisfaction" with
it is absurd.
> > > > > > > > not that that is or isn't reason to give him his
> > > > > > > > money back.
> >
> > > > > > > Or, say, if you ate all of your ice cream, I wouldn't be terribly
> > > > > > > interested in your complaints about how it wasn't very good.
> >
> > > > > > I agree that if I wanted a refund, I should have presented the
> > > > > > product to you for inspection.
> >
> > > > > And, um...you know, complained about it and stopped eating it after a
> > > > > couple of bites.
> >
> > > > Right, but that's not true of "service".
> >
> > > See, I think it is true of service.
> >
> > The scene that would occur if you refused the cooked food because
> > the waiter was not very helpful seems worse.
>
> Not at all. The manager is often open to such complaints. "Where's my
> food?" and "this is taking forever!" and "you know what, just charge
> us for the drinks we drank, and we'll be on our way."
>
How do you know all this?
> > > > In that case, are you
> > > > supposed to stand up and refuse to eat the meal, which you are
> > > > willing to pay for, because the service is not so good, which you
> > > > don't want to pay extra for?
> >
> > > Yes. Or at least, you know, go speak to the manager, who will almost
> > > certainly take your side even when you're so wrong-y you're bonde.
> >
> > My usual rule at restaurants is not to complain at all, just not to
> > go back ever again.
>
> Also, I hope you tipped the waiter, since if you don't you're kind of
> a thief.
>
You wouldn't be a "thief" if you didn't tip whatever their fantasy
percent is this week. How would you even know what that is? But I
accept that tipping like this is the convention in some places and
I tend to follow whatever the rules are, assuming that I know them.
> > That's not really fair, but the threat that
> > they'll spit in your food is too great.
>
> They don't spit in your food. I mean, I won't tell you this has
> absolutely never ever happened, but its up there with spitting on
> returned veterans or razor blades in halloween candy. And if they do
> spit in your food, well...they also sneeze all over their hands or rub
> their nose or play with their hair and then give you your plate.
>
I think I'm going to stop eating out.
> > > > > > Often shops don't worry so much
> > > > > > about it, however, if you've got a good argument and if you aren't
> > > > > > in there daily looking for free fixings.
> >
> > > > > Which isn't the same thing as being in the right, huh?
> >
> > > > In a situation where there is a disagreement about the quality of a
> > > > product or service, we can't just state with any certainty who is
> > > > right. The idea that a civil issue, which it plainly is, should be
> > > > raised to the level of a criminal arrest is something I feel can be
> > > > stated with certainty as being absurd.
> >
> > > I gather "defrauding an innkeeper" is fairly serious, as minor crimes
> > > go.
> >
> > Even writing a check this is over the amount you have in the
> > account, if it's not intentional, is usually just a civil issue.
>
> Which is very interesting, but "defrauding an innkeeper" is fairly
> serious, as minor crimes go, just about like writing a bad check.
>
But writing a bad check isn't usually a criminal offence. It is
usually a civil matter. That is when it is an accident, obviously
writing checks you don't intend to ever cover is a crime.
> > Shoplifting isn't only a civil issue. Regarding not paying for
> > something, are you just leaving without a word or are you putting
> > the service at issue? In the instant case, they put the service at
> > issue and it should have been a civil matter.
>
> And yet, it turns out to be something more like defrauding an
> innkeeper.
>
Are you extra sensitive to this slight too?
> > The courts often side
> > with businesses if the business has provided a good and even a
> > service.
>
> Like in this case, as we can infer from the actions of the patrons.
>
But they can argue about it in a civil court. In this case, they
are in there for some alleged crime. It's nonsense and should be
tossed. Then the city should have its arse sued by the patrons of
the restaurant for false arrest, defamation, etc. It will be
settled out of court for some money for the lawyers, to be sure.
> > but if you put the issue into play, a court would need to
> > decide.
> >
> > > > > > I think regarding food
> > > > > > that you should bring back in product that is problematic so that
> > > > > > the producer and distributor know there's a problem.
> >
> > > > > You know, and it isn't obvious you're just trying to chisle a free
> > > > > meal because you weren't raised right or something.
> >
> > > > I think if the milk I bought goes sour before the sell by date, I
> > > > should get a new one.
> >
> > > Okay. However, I have to wonder just how sour that milk was if what
> > > you bring back was an empty milk carton.
> >
> > I think you need to bring some milk back.
>
> I think you need to bring back most of the milk.
>
Is half all right with you? Remember, this is the *sell by* date,
not the use by date. It is stored properly and it has soured. I
don't really need sour milk and I expect it to be usable until its
sell by date, in the least.
> > But even if it's only a
> > eighth full, the fact that it is sour before the *sell by date*
> > suggests that the dairy or someone is pushing things to the limit
> > and beyond.
>
> I don't know that that's true; I think a small amount of milk in a
> container like that which has been opened and perhaps drunk out and
> kept next to who knows what in a refridgerator of unknown temperature
> of would go bad faster than a full, sealed carton kept in a cooler
> which meets whatever the state inspector's standards are.
>
That's probably true, but no effort is made to explain this. For
example, they might say that you should use the milk entirely
within a week of opening it. That information would be of
assistance to the consumer who wouldn't expect the milk to last to
the sell by date. Of course since milk usually does last even past
the sell by date, your contention isn't really relevant to my
personal situation. I've noticed that certain dairies regularly end
up with sour milk. I think it's plain they are pressing out the
sell by dates to save money. Why shouldn't they pay a price for
doing this? And more importantly, why shouldn't they be informed of
what they are doing? Only consumers reacting to products of dubious
nature can inform businesses that there's even a problem.
> > They obviously have an incentive to do this because it
> > means they can hold milk longer, lowering their costs.
>
> Of course, they also have an incentive not to do this, since it would
> mean loss of goodwill and business to a company that does no such
> thing and lets you know.
>
I think you are correct. I am actively avoiding milk from that
dairy now. I don't want to bother taking the milk back. I want the
product to work as advertised without any issues so I've move to
that.
> > Dairies that
> > are more honest about the shelf life have higher costs.
>
> which they pass on to you and obviously people are willing to pay
> more for percieved quality.
>
Some are, some aren't, I would expect. Milk is pretty much a loss
leader anyway, so price is not that much of a concern.
> > I believe
> > in incentivizing good behaviour, on all sides, so I do bring back
> > milk in situations like this. But regarding how much was left, the
> > last time it was about half the container.
>
> The last time? This has happened more than once?
>
Yes. It has happened several times when one specific dairy. But not
just that one. I got milk once that seemed oddly quickly at its
sell by date. I went into the store and looked through their milk
and found one container that was over a month past its sell by
date. Someone wasn't doing his job there.
> > > > Is that "chiselling"?
> >
> > > Absent other information, it would be indistinguishable from
> > > chisleing, yes.
> >
> > So bringing back sour milk (before the sell by date) is
> > "chiselling"?
>
> Maybe.
>
Would the other side of it be "chiselling", say charging people
late fees on credit cards by taking your time to process the mails?
> > I think you are ridiculous in your one-sidedness.
>
> I think you are ridiculous in your intentional point missing and your
> far-fetched counter examples.
>
The milk thing is a regular problem. This might be partly true
because there's obviously not great profit in milk and everyone is
trying to gain advantage. So there's "chiselling" from the business
side, right?
> > > > I think it's informing
> > > > the source that there's a problem and it's exacting a cost for
> > > > their poor quality standards.
> >
> > > Please try to actually respond to the matter at hand and not move off
> > > into Bonde land.
> >
> > The *exact* issue is whether or not withholding a *tip* to indicate
> > poor service should or should not be allowable.
>
> I don't think it should, given the reality of how waiters are paid in
> this country and the expectations someone has when they begin waiting
> on a customer.
>
How are they paid? Isn't the solution to just directly pay them?
But that isn't what they want because "tips" are sometimes large
and they don't want to lose out on that possibility.
> > > > > > > > > By analogy, therefore, we see the service couldn't have been all that
> > > > > > > > > bad, now, could it? And refusing to pay for something you recieved and
> > > > > > > > > consumed, well, that's stealing, isn't it?
> >
> > > > > > > > If you refused to pay for a thing and just kept it, that would be
> > > > > > > > stealing.
> >
> > > > > > > Ok.
> >
> > > > > > > > It's not stealing to disagree about the quality of
> > > > > > > > service.
> >
> > > > > > > Right, Bill...it's stealing to take something without paying for it.
> >
> > > > > > You are ignoring that you have a right in law to dispute charges
> > > > > > and dispute the quality of a good.
> >
> > > > > I think there's a certain "cake and eat it too" question there.
> >
> > > > If it's worth it to you to fight in court over a few bucks.
> >
> > > Yeah, I'm wondering...here's another more or less analogous example.
> > > I was watching The People's Court, the one with the Cubana judge?
> >
> > I don't like these shows because they operate like small claims
> > courts, sans basically the rules.
>
> Small claims courts in general operate sans basically the rules; its
>
They drop most of the rules because without a lawyer, most people
wouldn't be able to navigate the system. There are rules in the
sense that the judge might say that that isn't allowed because it's
hearsay, etc. But rules exist really to protect the sides and I'd
rather have them than not. Because when they aren't there, the
judge could rule almost any way. You see this in appeals from small
claims courts which are often trial de novo.
> you, some ghost of the UCC or the state's version thereof, and the
> judges own feelings of common sense and fairness, indeed, often into
> state court you see the black letter of the law bent around some judge
> acting like the oldest regular at your favorite tap room
>
> >.This leaves the judge free to
> > follow the rules or not as she sees fit.
>
> Anyway...
>
> > > These two guys appeared before her, one was some small businessman, a
> > > car detailer or something, and the other was some guy from a temp
> > > agency, and basically the case hinged on one guy was suing for unpaid
> > > wages and the other guy's defense was he shouldn't have to pay that
> > > guy, he did a lousy job.
> >
> > That's the opposite argument from the one we are discussing.
>
> No, that's precisely what we were discussing. You are being a
> retarded liar, again.
>
No, we were discussing whether or not you could argue that you
didn't have to pay all that was demanded by someone for a defective
product. You might see that as the opposite of not paying someone
you hired to work for an hourly wage, but I suspect that there are
laws that require you to pay someone you hired in that way for the
hours that they worked. I think there are also laws that prevent
you from taking out of their wages certain losses that they might
be otherwise responsible for. These labour protection laws are of
the sort you'd usually oppose, aren't they?
> >There
> > may be laws that require someone to be paid.
>
> And there certainly are laws that require you to pay your bill in a
> restaurant.
>
They are civil laws based on the implied contract and goods
received. As I said before, you can still argue a set off. Most
people won't for a restaurant bill because the amount is usually
not much and legal costs would be high. But some people are overly
litigious, so you never know.
> > > The judges found for the plaintiff, though,
> > > stating that while perhaps the guy didn't do a great job, the owner or
> > > manager or whatever he was didn't send him home, either, and so the
> > > defendant owed the defendent for his time.
> >
> > Because he was hired based on his time. There are laws involved,
> > laws you'd probably not support in large part, but I doubt that you
> > can really make an exacting comparison of this side to the other
> > side. If you are not happy with his work, fire him.
>
> What?
>
Fire him if you aren't happy with his work. Regarding the
restaurant, you'll claim that you should pay but just not return
again. I can see how there are similarities but I suspect that laws
are different in the different contexts.
> > If you don't
> > like the service you got from him, that service is still due and
> > payable?
>
> Its more an issue of deciding if you're telling the truth about
> "liking" the service, or at least, how much you have to "like" a
> service before you pay for it.
>
The issue was whether this was a civil question or a criminal one.
Furthermore, I didn't say they were right, although I wish they
were since I think forced tipping is a scam, just that they could
make an argument in civil court.
> > Think about how the customer of the place this guy worked
> > at feels. If it was repair of something, just fix it again and only
> > charge for the one time.
>
> that has no bearing on the matter at hand
>
It does because it is similar to the waitress going out for a smoke
and not waiting the table properly.
plausible prose man
recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >It certainly seems
> > > anti-libertarian.
>
> > That's because you have no more understanding of what is libertarian
> > than anything else.
>
> Libertarian would be market inclusive.
Whatever that means...no, that's okay, don't tell me.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
plausible prose man wrote:
>
> On Nov 22, 12:58 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
> recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > plausible prose man wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 22, 3:58 am, Binyamin Dissen <postin...@dissensoftware.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 21:35:41 +0000 "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
> > > > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > :>plausible prose man wrote:
> >
> > > > [ much snippage ]
> >
> > > > :>> and not be any
> > > > :>> worse than the jerk most people already think you are, you know,
> >
> > > > :>I'm a nice guy here and elsewhere. You are usually hardly polite,
> > > > :>which is why I wonder why you are defending paying tips. I would
> > > > :>have thought you'd be all for stiffing the waiter when they go for
> > > > :>a smoke instead of getting you your grub.
> >
> > > > Perhaps PPM is a quite poor waiter who can only get tips if they are forced?
> >
> > > Perhaps Binyan is a thief who thinks he can welch out on a service
> > > charge if, say, there was a slice of lemon in his ice tea.
> >
> > I'm somewhat taken aback by your odd concern about the welfare of
> > wait staff.
>
> It's not an issue of "concerned about their welfare;" I dont much
> care what they do with the money they're due when they get it. I just
> believe in property and contracts.
>
And, apparently, you hate "chisellers", but only when it's the
consumer. When the milk seller is pushing the dates to save money,
that's not something you'd become irked about.
> > You don't show such worry about people who own
> > businesses that are crushed by the likes of Walmart.
>
> Right, well...if someone comes up with a better business model, or is
> just a better waiter, so much for the poor waiters. That's hardly
> analogous, though, is it?
>
It is to your odd concern for waiters getting tips. Since there's
generally no law requiring anyone to pay tips, not paying them is
perfectly legal. In fact, if the "contract" says they must be paid,
this is entirely a civil question when it comes to enforcement. So
the analogy is there after all.
> > You also don't
> > seem to care about consumer rights.
>
> You're begging the question there.
>
Contract disputes are civil questions. Both (all) sides of a
contract have the legal right to take the contract to the courts or
to whatever body was agreed to decide the question. You can't see
that for the question of a set off of the tip in the restaurant
bill in the instant discussion.
> > And it's all so bogus anyway.
>
> What you wrote above sure is.
>
> > If you want people who work in restaurants to get paid well, just
> > pay them more.
>
> Or pay them in the first place. Well, I do that, Bonde, and I think
> you should too.
>
You mean you have restaruant employees and you follow the labour
laws and actually pay them? Because I wouldn't violate such rules
in similar situations. Or do you mean you tip? Because, as I said,
I do follow whatever the local conventions are, to the best of my
knowlege of what they are.
> I feel rather strongly anyone who doesn't leave a tip
> is something of a thief.
>
I don't see that, although as I said, I follow whatever the rules
are.
> If there's a problem with the service, well,
> talk to the manager. You know, unless it's something silly and you
> know it like they (horrors!) put a slice of lemon in your tea when you
> asked for no lemon and when you complained, they just took the lemon
> out.
>
How about the restaurant scene if "Five Easy Pieces"? Who was wrong
there in your opinion?
Lee Skoler
> On Nov 21, 5:35 pm, "Lesmond" <lesm...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > >On Nov 20, 1:26ÿpm, NadCixelsyd <nadcixel...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> Rather than a criminal case, the students could argue that this is a
> > >> civil case.
>
> > >"defrauding an inn keeper" or something like that. They might well
> > >convince whoever to drop those charges, but...
>
> > >> level of service.
>
> > > I am sure they recieved some level of service.
>
> > >> their obligation to pay for it.
>
> > >the Lost Ark" a fewyearsago, about the time the first of the most
> > >recent set of Star Wars movies came out. This was obviously an older
> > >gaps of many seconds in the beginning where it had broken and been
> > >spliced, and it was scratchy throughout.
>
> > > Dave, that's his name, he's more than a bit of a chisler, so on the
> > >way out, he asked me if I thought we should try to get out money back
> > >by complaining to the management about the quality of the print. I, of
> > >course, was fairly mortified that he was even asking, since obviously
> > >the movie was to his satisfaction, what with the way he sat through
> > >the whole thing.
>
> > >bad, now, could it? And refusing to pay for something you recieved and
> > >consumed, well, that's stealing, isn't it?
>
>
> I understand that. I think refusing to pay at that point is at least
> a form of theft, and in this case quite literally so.
>
> > should be based on service received.
>
> I don't disagree with that, exactly, except to state that one can
> reasonably infer the service recieved was satisfactory, since the
> parties involved apparently seemingly didn't decide to welch out on
> call, "the -itis."
>
What this means precisely I don’t know.
Lee Skoler
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
The libertarian view would utilize the market.
Ted The Cat
recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> NadCixelsyd wrote:
>
> > Rather than a criminal case, the students could argue that this is a
> > civil case.
>
> poorly rendered.
>
> > With a required 18% gratuity, one should expect some
> > their obligation to pay for it.
>
> apparently clearly stated, but it's not a criminal issue. I think
> that the police should be sued over false arrest.
Today's news reports that the District Attorney wants the criminal
charges dismissed.
"But Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli said Pope
and her friend, John Wagner, were right and believes a criminal
citation filed against the couple should be dropped, Pope said."
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2009/11/refusal_to_leave_a_tip_in_a_re.html
http://consumerist.com/5411149/police-drop-theft-charges-against-pub-non+tippers
Shawn Wilson
> Today's news reports that the District Attorney wants the criminal
> charges dismissed.
>
> "But Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli said Pope
> and her friend, John Wagner, were right and believes a criminal
> citation filed against the couple should be dropped, Pope said."
There was an old People's Court episode (with Judge Wapner) that
approached this issue fairly closely. It was, I think, about a limo
service, but the crux was the same- 'Tip' on the bill, didn't like the
service, refused the pay the tip. Wapner finally said that the bill
could have said $X for my aunt sally" and that it was called a tip
didn't remove the obligation to pay.
BUT, 'gratuity' is a word with a specific meaning, and that meaning
includes 'voluntary'. I think Wapner might not have ruled the same
way if the word had been 'gratuity'.
For what it's worth.
Bob Ward
<mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> plausible prose man wrote:
>>>
>>> On Nov 22, 3:36 am, Bob Ward <bobw...@email.com> wrote:
>>> > >> It certainly is a criminal case, as it stands they're charged
>>> > >> with
>>> > >>"defrauding an inn keeper" or something like that. They might
>>> > >>well convince whoever to drop those charges, but...
>>> >
>>> > If the innkeeper is charging a "gratuity" for service not rendered,
>>>
>>> Obviously the service was rendered.
>>>
Not if they repeatedly had to request the server to bring more drinks
or serve the food while it was still hot - or if they were served
scrambled eggs when they ordered them sunny side up. (even though the
server did not cook the eggs,) he/she should have made sure that the
item as served was what was ordered.
Bob Ward
wrote:
George:
>> Even knowing all that, I would've still slipped whoever a five,
>> because when the old sailor needs his, well, he needs his now, and the
>> rest of you better gangway.
You certainly re the freedom to pay for services not rendered if you
choose to do so, but that does not give the establishment the right to
extract a "gratuity" from customers who did not receive the service
they were being charged for.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
plausible prose man wrote:
>
> On Nov 23, 8:14 am, "Lesmond" <lesm...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:04:22 -0800 (PST), plausible prose man wrote:
> > >On Nov 22, 1:49嚙緘m, "Lesmond" <lesm...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> But...I had stayed in expectation of seeing the performer I had come to see
> > >> and whom they had kept insisting would be there. 嚙瘢 mean, I wasn't even going
> > >> to keep the money, I was going to donate the entire amount to the charity
> > >> instead of letting this lying, thieving venue take their cut. 嚙畿ut her
> > >> argument was that if I had stayed, they had earned their money.
> >
> > > Well, she's wrong, kind of like the people who don't want to pay
> > >their service charge.
> >
> > >> Happily I was working for an attorney at the time. 嚙瞌ne call from him and I
> > >> had my money back. 嚙確hey knew they were wrong. 嚙璀nd I fully expect the judge
> > >> to come down hard on the Lehigh Pub, too.
> >
> > > I don't think the situation is entirely analogous.
> >
> > I don't either, it's just that the argument used on me was the same one
> > you're putting forth.
>
> It's not really the same argument if the cases aren't analogous, is
> it?
>
> > I don't agree with it in either situation.
>
> So you're over on the bonde side, where you can eat the whole meal,
> lick the plates clean, unbutton the top button of your trousers, sit
> back, pat the ol' tum-tum and say "oh, man" a few times, and then
> except people to believe you when you say the food was so horrible you
> shouldn't have to pay for it?
>
> Riiiiiight.
>
In another posting, you claimed I was a "retarded liar". My
comments in no way misrepresented your views to the degree, if at
all, that you have done above to mine. I never claimed there was no
obligation to pay for services and especially products that you
keep. You are pretending that I claimed someone could eat at a
restaurant and then insist he didn't have to pay and that would be
that. I said that if they did that, it was a civil question. I
didn't take a position on whether or not they'd win or lose in
court, something that would depend on specific facts of that
situation.
plausible prose man
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:28:23 +0000 (UTC), Mark Steese
>
> >> plausible prose man wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 22, 3:36 am, Bob Ward <bobw...@email.com> wrote:
> >>> > >> It certainly is a criminal case, as it stands they're charged
> >>> > >> with
> >>> > >>"defrauding an inn keeper" or something like that. They might
> >>> > >>well convince whoever to drop those charges, but...
>
> >>> > If the innkeeper is charging a "gratuity" for service not rendered,
>
> >>> Obviously the service was rendered.
>
> Not if they repeatedly had to request the server to bring more drinks
> or serve the food while it was still hot - or if they were served
> scrambled eggs when they ordered them sunny side up.
No, even then. Please try not to be so ridiculous all the time.
>(even though the
> server did not cook the eggs,) he/she should have made sure that the
> item as served was what was ordered.
Or some acceptable substitute, which would hinge on its being, well,
accepted.
plausible prose man
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:05:45 -0800 (PST), "()" <karom...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> George:
>
> >> Even knowing all that, I would've still slipped whoever a five,
> >> because when the old sailor needs his, well, he needs his now, and the
> >> rest of you better gangway.
>
> You certainly re the freedom to pay for services not rendered if you
> choose to do so,
They brought it out to you, didn't they? That seemed to be to your
liking.
> but that does not give the establishment the right to
> extract a "gratuity" from customers who did not receive the service
> they were being charged for.
Yes it does, actually, especially since, in this case, they likely
did receive the service they were being chraged for. I mean, the food
didn't just sit in th kitchen all night, huh?
plausible prose man
recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > I think it pretty easy to intuit or infer from the context of this
> > discussion that "satisfactory" here means something like "having met
> > the requirements implied by whatever warranty of purpose," or more
> > specifically, "watchable."
>
> I can't define that entirely by whether or not someone leaves their
> seat mid movie.
Yes, you can; you can quite safely infer the movie was "watchable"
from the fact the person in question watched it. See how that works?
"Watched it"; "watchable?"
>You apparently can, as well as the other analogous
> situations, say that you didn't like the table service at a
> restaurant and didn't immediately blow a cork,
Speaking to the manager doesn't necessarily imply "blowing a cork,"
and indeed, you're a good bit less likely to get what you want if you
take that attitude.
> therefore you were
> happy enough and should pay whatever the claim you owe.
Yes, since as a libertarian I respect, you know, property, contracts,
that kind of thing.
> As is often
> the case, I think you are full of crap.
Yes, but you're wrong. You don't even have your head around
"watchable" and what that implies.
> It isn't a criminal
> question when two parties disagree about how much they owe each
> other.
Not paying the bill in a restaurant is typically a crime. How far
you'd get with the responding officer disputing the quality of the
food I don't know, but you'd probably want a goodly portion of it left
on your plate, since its a lot harder to make the case things are
"inedible" when you haven't eaten them, outside of Bonde land.
>That, in fact, is the entire "at law" aspect of the civil
> legal system.
>
> > It's pretty obviously watchable if you,
> > well, watched it, right? See how that works? I do not believe, nor do
> > I think a reasonable person believes he goes to the movies with the
> > expectation the movie they'll be seeing will be a genre defining
> > classic, just that it be, you know, basically watchable, sufficiently
> > engaging you'll want to see how it comes out, something like that.
>
> My entire point is that you can't define "satisfaction" by simply
> noting that someone didn't immediately negatively respond to the
> stimulus by leaving the area.
Yes, I think you should be allowed some reasonable sample. With a
movie, say, twenty minutes. I can't find it, but I recall seeing a
sign to that effect at the local Cinemark or Regal theater; if you
decide you're not happy with the movie such that you choose to stop
watching it within the first twenty minutes (and I assume this isn't
measured with a stop watch, what with the previews and all) well,
they'll refund your money, or issue you a pass or something. What they
probably won't do, however, at least not more than once or twice, is
give you a refund after you've sat through the whole thing, and why
should they?
> It takes some time, after all, for
> frogs to leap out of a heated pot.
Nice straw man, shithead. So, since you're now resorting to retarded
lies to make your case, well, we both know I win.
> > >All I said is that satisfaction with the
> > > service surrounding a film someone views isn't defined by whether
> > > or not they left before the film was over.
>
> > Yes it is, in this context.
>
> That's your opinion, I disagree with you.
Even you know, I'm right, which is why you're resorting to straw men
like "immediately" and ridiculous allusions to discredited urban
legends about boiling frogs.
> > > > > > > but was also dissatisfied with
> > > > > > > the way it was being presented,
>
> > > > > > Obviously not, huh? Or at least not to a degree that made the movie
> > > > > > unwatchable to him.
>
> > > > > But what is "satisfaction"? Does it exist when you don't get out of
> > > > > your chair and leave?
>
> > > > Let's say it can be reasonably inferred from that, yeah.
>
> > > I've been less than satisfied (in my opinion) with a film and I
> > > didn't get out of my chair and leave.
>
> > You're, perhaps unintentionally, equivocating on satisfactory.
>
> The problem is that you've defined, ipso facto, "satisfactory" to
> mean that the person didn't immediately leave the area upon the
> negative stimulus.
No, again, a retarded lie. What I wrote was pretty plain.
> > > I didn't ask for my money
> > > back either, but that's a different issue.
>
> > Again, your case is probably better that the food in a restaurant is
> > inedible if you don't, you know, eat it. You might still get a comp
> > there, but...that's the manager or whoever showing you every courtesy,
> > not so much a contractual issue.
>
> One of the arguments for adhesion contracts
Shut up, dummy. No one cares about your retarded lies anymore.
> > > > > Some people are not going to get out of their
> > > > > chair and leave even if they are remarkably unhappy.
>
> > > > We can't run our lives and our businesses around those with overly
> > > > complex inner lives.
>
> > > The issue I was taking was with your claim that they found the film
> > > "satisfactory" because they didn't leave.
>
> > I have no idea why. Well, actually, I do, but it doesn't speak well
> > for you. "satisfactory" in this case just means "watchable" or
> > something like that, not "good" in a more active way, and yes, if you
> > watched something, I have to infer you found it watchable.
>
> How do you know what "satisfactory" means?
Because I have some rudimentary understanding of contracts and
commerce and property and the exchange thereof.
>Firstly, what we are
> seeking here is a legal definition because if the two disagree, it
> is a civil lawsuit that will settle it (or a quick draw competition
> if the law isn't available). So can you cite case law for the
> proposition that "satisfactory" means what you think it means?
I'll go one better, I can find black letter law regarding what I'm
saying regarding "warranty of merchantability" and the acceptance or
rejectence of (allegedly) nonconforming goods.
> > Any
> > argument from you past that point reminds me of...well, one time my
> > mother and I were arguing about how to drive home from some place, I
> > like the way I go because, while its not the shortest route, it
> > involves the fewest stop signs or traffic lights or turns. My mom
> > doesn't like that way because, well, and here she said "I just don't
> > need a reason," to which I replied, "well, doesn't that make
> > you...unreasonable?" and her face caught this expression of "I have
> > lost every argument forever, haven't I?" before she blurted out "no!"
> > like a little kid denying what even he knows is so obviously true.
>
> I think that in that case, you've taken two meaning of "reason" and
> "reasonable" and conflated them.
Yes, of course you do.
>She was "unreasonable", therefore
> she lost the argument.
No, she lost every argument forever, and she knew it, just like you
know you lose all of these, which is why you resort to retarded lies
like you do.
> But she doesn't need to express a reason for
> not liking a route to not like the route.
Perhaps not, but she does need to be able to articulate some reason
when she's arguing someone should change their behavior based upon her
preferences.
> > > > > > > with interruptions and missing
> > > > > > > bits. Of course if you go to the one buck show, you should expect
> > > > > > > cracked and spliced content.
>
> > > > > > What?
>
> > > > > Whatever you wish to call it. When they don't charge much to see a
> > > > > film. In situations like that, they might generally use old film
> > > > > stock. So you should expect trouble, it's part of the charm.
>
> > > > Right, so, Bondeing aside we would agree you'd need something better
> > > > if you were going to argue the proffered goods were not delivered to
> > > > the customer's satisfaction when a twenty year old movie is shown at a
> > > > discount, especially if you only ask for a refund after you've sat
> > > > through the whole thing.
>
> > > I took no position on whether or not the patron should be given a
> > > refund, partial or otherwise. I took issue with whether you could
> > > tell if he found it satisfactory because he didn't leave.
>
> > Yes, well...making allowances for people with overly complex inner
> > lives, such as yourself, is an undue burden upon we the reasonable,
> > and we all wish you guys would knock it off.
>
> So it's overly complex to take issue with your trivial reasoning
> about what "satisfactory" means?
Yes. Again, it's difficult to credit your statement to the effect the
movie was not watchable if you watched it from start to finish, or the
dinner was inedible if you ate it. You do understand what "edible"
means, right? You're not that retarded, are you?
> I might hate a dinner but never
> say anything to the restaurant.
I don't care what you do. They put it in front of you, and you ate
it, you pay for it.
> I obviously didn't find that dinner
> "satisfactory".
Yes, you did, actually, at least in the context of that restaurants
warranties to you, which is the issue being discussed.
>To claim that there is a necessary connection
> between my instant response to the meal and my "satisfaction" with
> it is absurd.
You know, except to retarded liars.
> > > The scene that would occur if you refused the cooked food because
> > > the waiter was not very helpful seems worse.
>
> > Not at all. The manager is often open to such complaints. "Where's my
> > food?" and "this is taking forever!" and "you know what, just charge
> > us for the drinks we drank, and we'll be on our way."
>
> How do you know all this?
I've eaten in restaurants for years now. I know how to do it. I'm
sort of good at it.
> > > > > In that case, are you
> > > > > supposed to stand up and refuse to eat the meal, which you are
> > > > > willing to pay for, because the service is not so good, which you
> > > > > don't want to pay extra for?
>
> > > > Yes. Or at least, you know, go speak to the manager, who will almost
> > > > certainly take your side even when you're so wrong-y you're bonde.
>
> > > My usual rule at restaurants is not to complain at all, just not to
> > > go back ever again.
>
> > Also, I hope you tipped the waiter, since if you don't you're kind of
> > a thief.
>
> You wouldn't be a "thief" if you didn't tip whatever their fantasy
> percent is this week. How would you even know what that is?
Yes, its such a puzzle, isn't it? Ooo, poor little Bonde, so confused
all the time.
Please do us all a huge favor and find the nearest fire and go die in
it.
plausible prose man
> On Nov 23, 4:03 pm, Ted The Cat <tedtheca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Today's news reports that the District Attorney wants the criminal
> > charges dismissed.
>
> > "But Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli said Pope
> > and her friend, John Wagner, were right and believes a criminal
> > citation filed against the couple should be dropped, Pope said."
>
> There was an old People's Court episode (with Judge Wapner) that
> approached this issue fairly closely. It was, I think, about a limo
> service, but the crux was the same- 'Tip' on the bill, didn't like the
> service, refused the pay the tip. Wapner finally said that the bill
> could have said $X for my aunt sally" and that it was called a tip
> didn't remove the obligation to pay.
>
> BUT, 'gratuity' is a word with a specific meaning, and that meaning
> includes 'voluntary'.
I don't think it is in these contexts.
> I think Wapner might not have ruled the same
> way if the word had been 'gratuity'.
>
> For what it's worth.
Eh, I doubt it. Or, I dont know, he might have, but he would've
applied slightly different reasoning, like how acceptable was the
service; did it constitute something like a non-conforming good, how
non-conforming was that good, etc?
If you're Bob Ward saying you should be let out of the service charge
because you ordered sunny side up eggs and one of them had the yolks a
little broken, or you got a slice of lemon in your tea when you asked
for no lemon, well, no, you still have to pay, at least most of the
charge, because you still got eggs and a drink brought to you.
plausible prose man
recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> plausible prose man wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 1:28 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
> > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > >It certainly seems
> > > > > anti-libertarian.
>
> > > > That's because you have no more understanding of what is libertarian
> > > > than anything else.
>
> > > Libertarian would be market inclusive.
>
> > Whatever that means...no, that's okay, don't tell me.
>
> The libertarian view would utilize the market.
In combination with the law to enforce contracts, as well as a
suasion or more subtle social pressure to enforce customs, ettiquette
or mores. There's nothing unlibertarian about laws against defrauding
an innkeeper, even if one of the charges on your bill is an included
gratuity, or indeed, as Shawn alludes to, a donation to my aunt
sally.
Moreoever, it is not unlibertarian to expect people to, say, keep
their elbows off the table, chew with their mouths shut, etc.
plausible prose man
Not at all; however, in real life mostly it's the consumer who is
wrong about something: You may recall the girl suing McDonalds for
(she says) making her fat? I also see the Center for Science in the
Public Interest is suing Denny's for serving food that violates the
various implied warranties of merchantibility because of the high
sodium content and that the sodium content is not printed on the menu,
except it is printed on the menu, except, in a very Bonde like
fashion, the CSPI is claiming even when you print it on the menu no
one reads the menu so you just shouldn't be able to sell, you know, a
t-bone and eggs for breakie.
> When the milk seller is pushing the dates to save money,
You know, in your imaginary case.
> that's not something you'd become irked about.
I don't get too worked up about things that happen in your head,
especially when that's the only place they happen. If you have some
real case here, maybe I'll comment on it, but only to the extent
you're not being a fucking moron, a line you have crossed here when
you were arguing "just because I ate it didn't mean it was edible!"
> > > You don't show such worry about people who own
> > > businesses that are crushed by the likes of Walmart.
>
> > Right, well...if someone comes up with a better business model, or is
> > just a better waiter, so much for the poor waiters. That's hardly
> > analogous, though, is it?
>
> It is to your odd concern for waiters getting tips.
In what way, exactly? Go ahead, explain it to me.
> Since there's
> generally no law requiring anyone to pay tips, not paying them is
> perfectly legal.
Right, it's just tacky and small and illbred and a little cowardly
and kind of like stealing.
> In fact, if the "contract" says they must be paid,
> this is entirely a civil question when it comes to enforcement.
I don't quite know of a bright line rule that determines which things
fall to which side of it, but there are some things you may recieve
without paying for them which are illegal, and some merely tortious,
and some a combination of the two. Obtaining a hotel room without
paying for it is illegal, and the laws generally written such that
you'd need something better than "I wasn't happy with the room" if you
planned on not paying.
>So
> the analogy is there after all.
It is my strong feeling that, since you will recieve at least some
level of service, and especially given that waitresses aren't paid
what we as a society have decided is a legal wage if you don't,
sitting down and ordering a meal implies a willingness to leave a tip.
Not doing so is sort of one of those adhesion contracts you can change
the terms of retroactively, so I have to say your coming down on the
side you do is more indicative of incoherency on your part than mine,
and who is surprised to see Bonde being incoherent?
> > > You also don't
> > > seem to care about consumer rights.
>
> > You're begging the question there.
>
> Contract disputes are civil questions.
Okay, right...
>Both (all) sides of a
> contract have the legal right to take the contract to the courts or
> to whatever body was agreed to decide the question.
Okay.
>You can't see
> that for the question of a set off of the tip in the restaurant
> bill in the instant discussion.
I don't think it applies in this case. Not paying the bill in a
restaurant is a crime. I would not be surprised if that includes, you
know, any service charges or donations to the widow's and orphan's
fund, or whatever.
>
> > > And it's all so bogus anyway.
>
> > What you wrote above sure is.
>
> > > If you want people who work in restaurants to get paid well, just
> > > pay them more.
>
> > Or pay them in the first place. Well, I do that, Bonde, and I think
> > you should too.
>
> You mean you have restaruant employees and you follow the labour
> laws and actually pay them?
No, I tip generously, and wouldn't generally stiff someone.
> Because I wouldn't violate such rules
> in similar situations.
Yeah, I just bet.
> Or do you mean you tip? Because, as I said,
> I do follow whatever the local conventions are, to the best of my
> knowlege of what they are.
One of which is, unless there's something you feel worth taking to
the manager, you should leave a 15% tip.
>
> > I feel rather strongly anyone who doesn't leave a tip
> > is something of a thief.
>
> I don't see that,
Well, you're wrong.
>although as I said, I follow whatever the rules
> are.
One of which is, unless there's something you feel worth taking to
the manager, you should leave a 15% tip.
> > If there's a problem with the service, well,
> > talk to the manager. You know, unless it's something silly and you
> > know it like they (horrors!) put a slice of lemon in your tea when you
> > asked for no lemon and when you complained, they just took the lemon
> > out.
>
> How about the restaurant scene if "Five Easy Pieces"?
Yeah, how about that?
>Who was wrong
> there in your opinion?
Jack was, when he said "I want you to hold it between your knees."
That's. you know, you have to leave now time. Up to that point, well,
If the restaurant has a "no substitutions" breakfast policy, well,
that's the policy. You can ask they suspend it in your case, but if
they say "no," well, they are well within their rights, huh? You are
free to think that excessively inflexible, or alienating customers,
and you may be right, but it is their policy to set and enforce as
they see fit.
Lesmond
>On Nov 23, 8:14ÿam, "Lesmond" <lesm...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:04:22 -0800 (PST), plausible prose man wrote:
>> >On Nov 22, 1:49˜pm, "Lesmond" <lesm...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> But...I had stayed in expectation of seeing the performer I had come to see
>> >> and whom they had kept insisting would be there. ˜I mean, I wasn't even going
>> >> to keep the money, I was going to donate the entire amount to the charity
>> >> instead of letting this lying, thieving venue take their cut. ˜But her
>> >> argument was that if I had stayed, they had earned their money.
>>
>> > Well, she's wrong, kind of like the people who don't want to pay
>> >their service charge.
>>
>> >> Happily I was working for an attorney at the time. ˜One call from him and I
>> >> had my money back. ˜They knew they were wrong. ˜And I fully expect the judge
>> >> to come down hard on the Lehigh Pub, too.
>>
>> > I don't think the situation is entirely analogous.
>>
>> I don't either, it's just that the argument used on me was the same one
>> you're putting forth.
>
> It's not really the same argument if the cases aren't analogous, is
>it?
None of it matters any longer. The charges have been dropped. As I knew
they would be.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
plausible prose man wrote:
>
> On Nov 23, 2:19 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
> recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > I think it pretty easy to intuit or infer from the context of this
> > > discussion that "satisfactory" here means something like "having met
> > > the requirements implied by whatever warranty of purpose," or more
> > > specifically, "watchable."
> >
> > I can't define that entirely by whether or not someone leaves their
> > seat mid movie.
>
> Yes, you can; you can quite safely infer the movie was "watchable"
> from the fact the person in question watched it. See how that works?
> "Watched it"; "watchable?"
>
The problem is that you've defined "watchable" as having watched it
and then defined "satisfactory" as being "wachable" by your
previous definition. I don't accept that chain of proof, perhaps
largely because it's by simple assertion.
> >You apparently can, as well as the other analogous
> > situations, say that you didn't like the table service at a
> > restaurant and didn't immediately blow a cork,
>
> Speaking to the manager doesn't necessarily imply "blowing a cork,"
> and indeed, you're a good bit less likely to get what you want if you
> take that attitude.
>
But I don't want anything. I didn't find the movie satisfactory
because it had multiple missing parts and broke several times. I
wasn't happy. But I stayed to the finish of it anyway.
> > therefore you were
> > happy enough and should pay whatever the claim you owe.
>
> Yes, since as a libertarian I respect, you know, property, contracts,
> that kind of thing.
>
Right, but you seem to hold the one sided view that the business is
the one who defines the contract and the consumer is the one who
eats it.
> > As is often
> > the case, I think you are full of crap.
>
> Yes, but you're wrong. You don't even have your head around
> "watchable" and what that implies.
>
I might be wrong, but I know I've seen some pretty poor quality TV
off antennas and I wouldn't necessarily call that "watchable" even
if it's the way TV came in for long periods.
> > It isn't a criminal
> > question when two parties disagree about how much they owe each
> > other.
>
> Not paying the bill in a restaurant is typically a crime.
>
I don't know what the law is, but contesting a contact is typically
a civil question.
> How far
> you'd get with the responding officer disputing the quality of the
> food I don't know, but you'd probably want a goodly portion of it left
> on your plate, since its a lot harder to make the case things are
> "inedible" when you haven't eaten them, outside of Bonde land.
>
It's not important how easy it is to prove, it's only important
that it is a civil question, as I originally claimed.
> >That, in fact, is the entire "at law" aspect of the civil
> > legal system.
> >
> > > It's pretty obviously watchable if you,
> > > well, watched it, right? See how that works? I do not believe, nor do
> > > I think a reasonable person believes he goes to the movies with the
> > > expectation the movie they'll be seeing will be a genre defining
> > > classic, just that it be, you know, basically watchable, sufficiently
> > > engaging you'll want to see how it comes out, something like that.
> >
> > My entire point is that you can't define "satisfaction" by simply
> > noting that someone didn't immediately negatively respond to the
> > stimulus by leaving the area.
>
> Yes, I think you should be allowed some reasonable sample. With a
> movie, say, twenty minutes. I can't find it, but I recall seeing a
> sign to that effect at the local Cinemark or Regal theater; if you
> decide you're not happy with the movie such that you choose to stop
> watching it within the first twenty minutes (and I assume this isn't
> measured with a stop watch, what with the previews and all) well,
> they'll refund your money, or issue you a pass or something. What they
> probably won't do, however, at least not more than once or twice, is
> give you a refund after you've sat through the whole thing, and why
> should they?
>
This issue is what they will do as a service to you so there's less
risk of you getting into a film you wish you hadn't. But it's not a
legal question.
> > It takes some time, after all, for
> > frogs to leap out of a heated pot.
>
> Nice straw man, shithead. So, since you're now resorting to retarded
> lies to make your case, well, we both know I win.
>
Huh? My comment was after I said: "My entire point is that you
can't define "satisfaction" by simply
noting that someone didn't immediately negatively respond to the
stimulus by leaving the area."
> > > >All I said is that satisfaction with the
> > > > service surrounding a film someone views isn't defined by whether
> > > > or not they left before the film was over.
> >
> > > Yes it is, in this context.
> >
> > That's your opinion, I disagree with you.
>
> Even you know, I'm right, which is why you're resorting to straw men
> like "immediately" and ridiculous allusions to discredited urban
> legends about boiling frogs.
>
I didn't claim that frogs never left a heated pot, just that it
took some time. Regarding who is correct in this discussion, that
seems to be me. When you start with the name calling and similar,
that usually means you know that too.
> > > > > > > > but was also dissatisfied with
> > > > > > > > the way it was being presented,
> >
> > > > > > > Obviously not, huh? Or at least not to a degree that made the movie
> > > > > > > unwatchable to him.
> >
> > > > > > But what is "satisfaction"? Does it exist when you don't get out of
> > > > > > your chair and leave?
> >
> > > > > Let's say it can be reasonably inferred from that, yeah.
> >
> > > > I've been less than satisfied (in my opinion) with a film and I
> > > > didn't get out of my chair and leave.
> >
> > > You're, perhaps unintentionally, equivocating on satisfactory.
> >
> > The problem is that you've defined, ipso facto, "satisfactory" to
> > mean that the person didn't immediately leave the area upon the
> > negative stimulus.
>
> No, again, a retarded lie. What I wrote was pretty plain.
>
This is what you have been saying, that if you don't leave the film
substantially before its end, stop eating substantially before the
food is gone, (etc.), you not only have no legal right to contest
the bill, it is a crime to do so. I have repeatedly insisted that
your view is nuts, that paying a bill is a civil question, that set
offs and counterclaims are very possible in the potential civil
case resulting from the events described. I think that I am
correct.
> > > > I didn't ask for my money
> > > > back either, but that's a different issue.
> >
> > > Again, your case is probably better that the food in a restaurant is
> > > inedible if you don't, you know, eat it. You might still get a comp
> > > there, but...that's the manager or whoever showing you every courtesy,
> > > not so much a contractual issue.
> >
> > One of the arguments for adhesion contracts
>
> Shut up, dummy. No one cares about your retarded lies anymore.
>
It's too bad that my correct statements are changed into so-called
"retarded lies". I do know what I'm talking about and what I'm
saying is right.
> > > > > > Some people are not going to get out of their
> > > > > > chair and leave even if they are remarkably unhappy.
> >
> > > > > We can't run our lives and our businesses around those with overly
> > > > > complex inner lives.
> >
> > > > The issue I was taking was with your claim that they found the film
> > > > "satisfactory" because they didn't leave.
> >
> > > I have no idea why. Well, actually, I do, but it doesn't speak well
> > > for you. "satisfactory" in this case just means "watchable" or
> > > something like that, not "good" in a more active way, and yes, if you
> > > watched something, I have to infer you found it watchable.
> >
> > How do you know what "satisfactory" means?
>
> Because I have some rudimentary understanding of contracts and
> commerce and property and the exchange thereof.
>
I've also heard of Corbin.
> >Firstly, what we are
> > seeking here is a legal definition because if the two disagree, it
> > is a civil lawsuit that will settle it (or a quick draw competition
> > if the law isn't available). So can you cite case law for the
> > proposition that "satisfactory" means what you think it means?
>
> I'll go one better, I can find black letter law regarding what I'm
> saying regarding "warranty of merchantability" and the acceptance or
> rejectence of (allegedly) nonconforming goods.
>
Is this going to be you attempting to use the UCC as an analogy for
the instant case? Even if you've accepted your allotment of widgets
as "conforming goods", you can still sue the supplier if you later
find out they aren't what you thought they were.
> > > Any
> > > argument from you past that point reminds me of...well, one time my
> > > mother and I were arguing about how to drive home from some place, I
> > > like the way I go because, while its not the shortest route, it
> > > involves the fewest stop signs or traffic lights or turns. My mom
> > > doesn't like that way because, well, and here she said "I just don't
> > > need a reason," to which I replied, "well, doesn't that make
> > > you...unreasonable?" and her face caught this expression of "I have
> > > lost every argument forever, haven't I?" before she blurted out "no!"
> > > like a little kid denying what even he knows is so obviously true.
> >
> > I think that in that case, you've taken two meanings of "reason" and
> > "reasonable" and conflated them.
>
> Yes, of course you do.
>
You are the one who brought up "reason", "reasonable" and
"unreasonable". You asserted that not having a reason for something
made you "unreasonable".
> >She was "unreasonable", therefore
> > she lost the argument.
>
> No, she lost every argument forever, and she knew it, just like you
> know you lose all of these, which is why you resort to retarded lies
> like you do.
>
I would hope that you would avoid calling her a "retarded liar" for
contesting your various claims.
> > But she doesn't need to express a reason for
> > not liking a route to not like the route.
>
> Perhaps not, but she does need to be able to articulate some reason
> when she's arguing someone should change their behavior based upon her
> preferences.
>
If you mean to win a debate of reason, sure, but she'd just prefer
going the other way. Maybe it's "greener" or something.
> > > > > > > > with interruptions and missing
> > > > > > > > bits. Of course if you go to the one buck show, you should expect
> > > > > > > > cracked and spliced content.
> >
> > > > > > > What?
> >
> > > > > > Whatever you wish to call it. When they don't charge much to see a
> > > > > > film. In situations like that, they might generally use old film
> > > > > > stock. So you should expect trouble, it's part of the charm.
> >
> > > > > Right, so, Bondeing aside we would agree you'd need something better
> > > > > if you were going to argue the proffered goods were not delivered to
> > > > > the customer's satisfaction when a twenty year old movie is shown at a
> > > > > discount, especially if you only ask for a refund after you've sat
> > > > > through the whole thing.
> >
> > > > I took no position on whether or not the patron should be given a
> > > > refund, partial or otherwise. I took issue with whether you could
> > > > tell if he found it satisfactory because he didn't leave.
> >
> > > Yes, well...making allowances for people with overly complex inner
> > > lives, such as yourself, is an undue burden upon we the reasonable,
> > > and we all wish you guys would knock it off.
> >
> > So it's overly complex to take issue with your trivial reasoning
> > about what "satisfactory" means?
>
> Yes. Again, it's difficult to credit your statement to the effect the
> movie was not watchable if you watched it from start to finish, or the
> dinner was inedible if you ate it. You do understand what "edible"
> means, right? You're not that retarded, are you?
>
But you are again playing word games. There is no limit on
dissatisfaction about a meal that requires it be "inedible". You
just made that up.
> > I might hate a dinner but never
> > say anything to the restaurant.
>
> I don't care what you do. They put it in front of you, and you ate
> it, you pay for it.
>
Keep in mind that I wasn't attempting to get a free meal, all I did
was say nothing about the problems at all. And you are still
attacking me. However, now that you brought it up, I think that you
as a restaurant manager come across as an arse.
> > I obviously didn't find that dinner
> > "satisfactory".
>
> Yes, you did, actually, at least in the context of that restaurants
> warranties to you, which is the issue being discussed.
>
It doesn't even really matter whether there is some rule somewhere
agreeing with you on this, it's still entirely a civil question,
and the person who thinks your food sucks has the right to make
that argument before a court of law. If there is an arbitration
clause, he has the right to make the argument that it doesn't apply
before a court of law.
> >To claim that there is a necessary connection
> > between my instant response to the meal and my "satisfaction" with
> > it is absurd.
>
> You know, except to retarded liars.
>
I've eaten food I didn't like and not said anything about it.
> > > > The scene that would occur if you refused the cooked food because
> > > > the waiter was not very helpful seems worse.
> >
> > > Not at all. The manager is often open to such complaints. "Where's my
> > > food?" and "this is taking forever!" and "you know what, just charge
> > > us for the drinks we drank, and we'll be on our way."
> >
> > How do you know all this?
>
> I've eaten in restaurants for years now. I know how to do it. I'm
> sort of good at it.
>
I'm trying to figure out why you invariably side with the
management, even to the extent that you don't submit the question
to the courts, other than as a criminal violation.
> > > > > > In that case, are you
> > > > > > supposed to stand up and refuse to eat the meal, which you are
> > > > > > willing to pay for, because the service is not so good, which you
> > > > > > don't want to pay extra for?
> >
> > > > > Yes. Or at least, you know, go speak to the manager, who will almost
> > > > > certainly take your side even when you're so wrong-y you're bonde.
> >
> > > > My usual rule at restaurants is not to complain at all, just not to
> > > > go back ever again.
> >
> > > Also, I hope you tipped the waiter, since if you don't you're kind of
> > > a thief.
> >
> > You wouldn't be a "thief" if you didn't tip whatever their fantasy
> > percent is this week. How would you even know what that is?
>
> Yes, its such a puzzle, isn't it? Ooo, poor little Bonde, so confused
> all the time.
>
What is the percentage this week before you have the patron
arrested if he doesn't pay it?
> Please do us all a huge favor and find the nearest fire and go die in
> it.
>
You aren't exactly making me feel welcome in your restaurant.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Mark Steese wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:4B098B0F...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
> > plausible prose man wrote:
> >>
> >> On Nov 22, 3:36 am, Bob Ward <bobw...@email.com> wrote:
> >> > >> It certainly is a criminal case, as it stands they're charged
> >> > >> with
> >> > >>"defrauding an inn keeper" or something like that. They might
> >> > >>well convince whoever to drop those charges, but...
> >> >
> >> > If the innkeeper is charging a "gratuity" for service not rendered,
> >>
> >> Obviously the service was rendered.
> >>
> > But there were 10,000 screaming cockroaches that invaded the bed
> > that night. You got zero sleep. All you could do is squish them and
> > cower in a corner, a huddled mess. It was horrible. You would like
> > a discount. The innkeeper says you got the room overnight, you
> > didn't leave and sleep under a bridge, you owe for the full
> > freight.
>
> If you thought there were ten thousand screaming cockroaches in your bed
> and you didn't leave, you were pretty obviously stoned out of your gourd,
> and I fail to see how the fact that you had a bad trip is the innkeeper's
> fault.
>
But make that case in civil court. If there are no cockroaches,
they are just the result of the "bad trip" of a drug user, that
would seem to suggest that the drug fiend should still pay for the
night. OTOH, if there are millions of dead cockroaches under the
building, you called the exterminator a few days before the trial,
that would suggest otherwise.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
plausible prose man wrote:
>
> On Nov 23, 5:12 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
> recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > plausible prose man wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 23, 1:28 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
> > > recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >It certainly seems
> > > > > > anti-libertarian.
> >
> > > > > That's because you have no more understanding of what is libertarian
> > > > > than anything else.
> >
> > > > Libertarian would be market inclusive.
> >
> > > Whatever that means...no, that's okay, don't tell me.
> >
> > The libertarian view would utilize the market.
>
> In combination with the law to enforce contracts,
>
It is the *civil* law that enforces civil contracts.
> as well as a
> suasion or more subtle social pressure to enforce customs, ettiquette
> or mores. There's nothing unlibertarian about laws against defrauding
> an innkeeper,
>
The problem with your analysis is that it ignores counterclaims and
set offs. It also makes something a matter for criminal law when it
would seem to be a civil question. But this depends on the context.
Shoplifting is a criminal offence. But buying a watch on shop
credit and then refusing to pay that bill is a civil offence.
> even if one of the charges on your bill is an included
> gratuity, or indeed, as Shawn alludes to, a donation to my aunt
> sally.
>
I think you are full of crap. You act like I can walk into some
service place and get billed any amount and I must pay it no matter
how insane the claimed reason for the amount is. I might not know
what the total cost of something is before I get the bill. So how
did I agree to it being any amount? I didn't.
> Moreoever, it is not unlibertarian to expect people to, say, keep
> their elbows off the table, chew with their mouths shut, etc.
>
In your establishment, you can, of course, have house rules. I
didn't claim otherwise.
plausible prose man
recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> It's too bad that my correct statements are changed into so-called
> "retarded lies".
Yeah, like that correct statement about how you can watch the
unwatchable and eat the inedible
> I do know what I'm talking about
Of course you don't.
>and what I'm
> saying is right.
Now you're just trolling.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
plausible prose man wrote:
>
> On Nov 23, 6:22 pm, Shawn Wilson <ikonoql...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 4:03 pm, Ted The Cat <tedtheca...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Today's news reports that the District Attorney wants the criminal
> > > charges dismissed.
> >
> > > "But Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli said Pope
> > > and her friend, John Wagner, were right and believes a criminal
> > > citation filed against the couple should be dropped, Pope said."
> >
> > There was an old People's Court episode (with Judge Wapner) that
> > approached this issue fairly closely. It was, I think, about a limo
> > service, but the crux was the same- 'Tip' on the bill, didn't like the
> > service, refused the pay the tip. Wapner finally said that the bill
> > could have said $X for my aunt sally" and that it was called a tip
> > didn't remove the obligation to pay.
> >
> > BUT, 'gratuity' is a word with a specific meaning, and that meaning
> > includes 'voluntary'.
>
> I don't think it is in these contexts.
>
If someone isn't given constructive notice of what will be put on
their bill, they have the right to contest it as reasonable, among
other things.
> > I think Wapner might not have ruled the same
> > way if the word had been 'gratuity'.
> >
> > For what it's worth.
>
> Eh, I doubt it. Or, I dont know, he might have, but he would've
> applied slightly different reasoning, like how acceptable was the
> service; did it constitute something like a non-conforming good, how
> non-conforming was that good, etc?
>
Much of the UCC involves merchant to merchant dealings.
Furthermore, the UCC stands as the default contract terms that can
be modified by contract. The idea is to simplify business dealings.
I really don't see what this has to do with consumer protection
laws and other civil procedure that can be used to find remedies at
law or even equity.
> If you're Bob Ward saying you should be let out of the service charge
> because you ordered sunny side up eggs and one of them had the yolks a
> little broken, or you got a slice of lemon in your tea when you asked
> for no lemon, well, no, you still have to pay, at least most of the
> charge, because you still got eggs and a drink brought to you.
>
I would disagree with this assessment. I think that a court could
decide this. Whether they would decide what you just said, I don't
take any position on that, but to claim that you can arrest and put
someone in prison for "theft" because they disagree about the
amount of their bill, well, that's crap.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Lesmond wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:03:07 -0800 (PST), plausible prose man wrote:
>
> >On Nov 23, 8:14�am, "Lesmond" <lesm...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:04:22 -0800 (PST), plausible prose man wrote:
> >> >On Nov 22, 1:49�pm, "Lesmond" <lesm...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> But...I had stayed in expectation of seeing the performer I had come to see
> >> >> and whom they had kept insisting would be there. �I mean, I wasn't even going
> >> >> to keep the money, I was going to donate the entire amount to the charity
> >> >> instead of letting this lying, thieving venue take their cut. �But her
> >> >> argument was that if I had stayed, they had earned their money.
> >>
> >> > Well, she's wrong, kind of like the people who don't want to pay
> >> >their service charge.
> >>
> >> >> Happily I was working for an attorney at the time. �One call from him and I
> >> >> had my money back. �They knew they were wrong. �And I fully expect the judge
> >> >> to come down hard on the Lehigh Pub, too.
> >>
> >> > I don't think the situation is entirely analogous.
> >>
> >> I don't either, it's just that the argument used on me was the same one
> >> you're putting forth.
> >
> > It's not really the same argument if the cases aren't analogous, is
> >it?
>
> None of it matters any longer. The charges have been dropped. As I knew
> they would be.
>
I think before PPM is completely let off the hook, we should wait
to see if these folks sue the hell out of the city for false
arrest, malicious prosecution, harassment and who knows what else.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Oh my.
> You may recall the girl suing McDonalds for
> (she says) making her fat?
>
Does McDonalds have a duty to sell foods that are safe to consume?
> I also see the Center for Science in the
> Public Interest is suing Denny's for serving food that violates the
> various implied warranties of merchantibility because of the high
> sodium content and that the sodium content is not printed on the menu,
> except it is printed on the menu, except, in a very Bonde like
> fashion, the CSPI is claiming even when you print it on the menu no
> one reads the menu so you just shouldn't be able to sell, you know, a
> t-bone and eggs for breakie.
>
Do people peruse the menu? Does the menu provide constructive
notice of a contract term?
> http://www.foodliabilitylaw.com/2009/08/articles/uniform-commercial-code-1/facts-alleged-in-cspi-sodium-suit-incongruent-with-claims-asserted/
>
> > When the milk seller is pushing the dates to save money,
>
> You know, in your imaginary case.
>
Since this milk seems to regularly go bad before the sell by date,
and this isn't true very often of other milk, I have to conclude
that the milk seller is pushing dates. I've also noticed that the
dates to sell the milk are sometimes much farther in the future
than I'd consider reasonable. So that seems to be clearly pushing
it.
> > that's not something you'd become irked about.
>
> I don't get too worked up about things that happen in your head,
> especially when that's the only place they happen. If you have some
> real case here, maybe I'll comment on it, but only to the extent
> you're not being a fucking moron, a line you have crossed here when
> you were arguing "just because I ate it didn't mean it was edible!"
>
You could eat grubs. That doesn't mean you'd want to pay for them.
I gave you a real case, the milk going sour.
> > > > You don't show such worry about people who own
> > > > businesses that are crushed by the likes of Walmart.
> >
> > > Right, well...if someone comes up with a better business model, or is
> > > just a better waiter, so much for the poor waiters. That's hardly
> > > analogous, though, is it?
> >
> > It is to your odd concern for waiters getting tips.
>
> In what way, exactly? Go ahead, explain it to me.
>
Why should you care at all? I don't see you worrying about other
people getting paid a "fair" wage? I see you as taking the
libertarian position that you get paid exactly what you are worth.
If you don't like working as a waiter, get a different job.
> > Since there's
> > generally no law requiring anyone to pay tips, not paying them is
> > perfectly legal.
>
> Right, it's just tacky and small and illbred and a little cowardly
> and kind of like stealing.
>
I think you are nuts. The whole required tip nonsense is a con. Pay
the workers whatever you think they are worth, include that in the
price of the food. That view isn't stealing, it's the view in
pretty much every other business out there.
> > In fact, if the "contract" says they must be paid,
> > this is entirely a civil question when it comes to enforcement.
>
> I don't quite know of a bright line rule that determines which things
> fall to which side of it, but there are some things you may recieve
> without paying for them which are illegal, and some merely tortious,
> and some a combination of the two. Obtaining a hotel room without
> paying for it is illegal, and the laws generally written such that
> you'd need something better than "I wasn't happy with the room" if you
> planned on not paying.
>
The issue here isn't whether or not the court would rule one way or
the other, just that it is a civil issue, if properly put into
play, and it is an argument you can make in the civil courts.
> >So
> > the analogy is there after all.
>
> It is my strong feeling that, since you will recieve at least some
> level of service, and especially given that waitresses aren't paid
> what we as a society have decided is a legal wage if you don't,
>
I'm not sure where you are going with this, "minimum wage" laws
aren't sometime you support, are they? And if someone isn't getting
paid enough, wouldn't you usually tell them to just find a job that
pays better?
> sitting down and ordering a meal implies a willingness to leave a tip.
>
So buying a burger at the McD implies that?
> Not doing so is sort of one of those adhesion contracts you can change
> the terms of retroactively, so I have to say your coming down on the
> side you do is more indicative of incoherency on your part than mine,
> and who is surprised to see Bonde being incoherent?
>
I'd be surprised to be incoherent because I'm not incoherent.
> > > > You also don't
> > > > seem to care about consumer rights.
> >
> > > You're begging the question there.
> >
> > Contract disputes are civil questions.
>
> Okay, right...
>
This reminds me of the Seinfeld where Jerry bet Kramer than he'd
never rebuild his apartment with "levels". Later Kramer said that
he'd decided not to rebuild the apartment with levels so the bet
was off. Seinfeld pointed out, "That's what the bet was about!" You
have been insisting that not paying for a tip was a criminal
question while I've been insisting that it is a civil one.
> >Both (all) sides of a
> > contract have the legal right to take the contract to the courts or
> > to whatever body was agreed to decide the question.
>
> Okay.
>
> >You can't see
> > that for the question of a set off of the tip in the restaurant
> > bill in the instant discussion.
>
> I don't think it applies in this case. Not paying the bill in a
> restaurant is a crime.
>
Disputing a transaction and withholding payment until the dispute
is resolved isn't a crime in my option, it's a civil question. At
common law, I think it should clearly be a civil question. But it
is possible to write statutory laws that override anything in
common law.
> I would not be surprised if that includes, you
> know, any service charges or donations to the widow's and orphan's
> fund, or whatever.
>
You are aware that it is possible to buy something with a Visa card
and then "dispute" the charge, right?
> >
> > > > And it's all so bogus anyway.
> >
> > > What you wrote above sure is.
> >
> > > > If you want people who work in restaurants to get paid well, just
> > > > pay them more.
> >
> > > Or pay them in the first place. Well, I do that, Bonde, and I think
> > > you should too.
> >
> > You mean you have restaruant employees and you follow the labour
> > laws and actually pay them?
>
> No, I tip generously, and wouldn't generally stiff someone.
>
I don't have a problem with you tipping generously. I have a
problem with you telling other people what to do. I also have a
problem with what I feel is a misrepresentation and game playing
with costs of a service.
> > Because I wouldn't violate such rules
> > in similar situations.
>
> Yeah, I just bet.
>
If the accepted rules are to tip a certain percent, I do that.
> > Or do you mean you tip? Because, as I said,
> > I do follow whatever the local conventions are, to the best of my
> > knowlege of what they are.
>
> One of which is, unless there's something you feel worth taking to
> the manager, you should leave a 15% tip.
>
This is like a tax on what the prices are in the shop. Would you
accept this in other industries?
> > > I feel rather strongly anyone who doesn't leave a tip
> > > is something of a thief.
> >
> > I don't see that,
>
> Well, you're wrong.
>
> >although as I said, I follow whatever the rules
> > are.
>
> One of which is, unless there's something you feel worth taking to
> the manager, you should leave a 15% tip.
>
> > > If there's a problem with the service, well,
> > > talk to the manager. You know, unless it's something silly and you
> > > know it like they (horrors!) put a slice of lemon in your tea when you
> > > asked for no lemon and when you complained, they just took the lemon
> > > out.
> >
> > How about the restaurant scene if "Five Easy Pieces"?
>
> Yeah, how about that?
>
Should he leave a tip?
> >Who was wrong
> > there in your opinion?
>
> Jack was, when he said "I want you to hold it between your knees."
> That's. you know, you have to leave now time.
>
Not allowing reasonable substitutions in a seat down restaurant
suggests that the "service" aspect of the restaurant is lacking.
They expect a tip for that? Keep in mind that fast food restaurants
routinely allow what I think are rather complicated and perhaps
unwarranted substitutions No tip is required.
> Up to that point, well,
> If the restaurant has a "no substitutions" breakfast policy, well,
> that's the policy. You can ask they suspend it in your case, but if
> they say "no," well, they are well within their rights, huh?
>
I don't disagree that they are within their rights.
> You are
> free to think that excessively inflexible, or alienating customers,
> and you may be right, but it is their policy to set and enforce as
> they see fit.
>
Like Jack can decide whether or not to leave a tip? You seem to
have a one sided view on transactions, instead of treating both
sides as equals.
Opus the Penguin
> None of it matters any longer.
Don't be silly. Just because the case isn't going to trial doesn't
mean we can't argue about it for the next month.
> The charges have been dropped. As
> I knew they would be.
Specifically, the police are dropping the charges on the advice of
the D.A. So the restaurant manager lost his opportunity to do the
right thing.
Apparently, the manager had to hear the news from the press. In
recommending that the charges be dropped, D.A. John Morganelli made
a point that we made here. This is a case that should be pursued
civilly if at all:
http://www.examiner.com/x-29997-Allentown-Headlines-Examiner~y2009m11d24-Update--Charges-withdrawn-over-Jip-on-the-Tip or
<http://snipurl.com/notipforyou>
Morganelli--who clearly lurks in AFCA--made another point made in
this thread. Gratuities are optional.
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/index.ssf/2009/11/bethlehem_police_officially_dr.html
or <http://snipurl.com/gratuitiesareoptional>
Restaurant managers everywhere must hate the manager of this pub.
While Morganelli's comment doesn't have the force of law or even
precedent, it's probably right. Now everyone knows you don't have to
pay that added gratuity if you don't want to. I suppose restaurants
can get around that by changing the language in the menus to
"service charge".
Also at issue was the fact that the gratuity added to the bill was
actually 22% rather than the 18% specified in the menu:
http://consumerist.com/2009/11/police-drop-theft-charges-against-pub-non-tippers.html
or <http://snipurl.com/thepubcantuseacalculatoreither>
I wonder if the manager will be foolish enough to try pursuing the
matter civilly.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
plausible prose man
Well, really...who has more to lose by being wrong in the usual
business relationship, the customer or the business? What's the thing
about how the rabbit usually outruns the fox? The businessman is after
his liv...oh, what's the point of even talking to you, you retarded
liar?
> > You may recall the girl suing McDonalds for
> > (she says) making her fat?
>
> Does McDonalds have a duty to sell foods that are safe to consume?
That might be an interesting discussion to have with someone who
wasn't retarded and basically honest, like Kim or someone. You,
however, are a retarded liar, so fuck off.
> > I also see the Center for Science in the
> > Public Interest is suing Denny's for serving food that violates the
> > various implied warranties of merchantibility because of the high
> > sodium content and that the sodium content is not printed on the menu,
> > except it is printed on the menu, except, in a very Bonde like
> > fashion, the CSPI is claiming even when you print it on the menu no
> > one reads the menu so you just shouldn't be able to sell, you know, a
> > t-bone and eggs for breakie.
>
> Do people peruse the menu?
What a retarded question.
>Does the menu provide constructive
> notice of a contract term?
what a retarded question.
> >http://www.foodliabilitylaw.com/2009/08/articles/uniform-commercial-c...
>
> > > When the milk seller is pushing the dates to save money,
>
> > You know, in your imaginary case.
>
> Since this milk seems to regularly go bad before the sell by date,
> and this isn't true very often of other milk, I have to conclude
> that the milk seller is pushing dates.
Buy some other kind of milk? If you're aware of this problem and you
keep subjecting yourself to it, I have to really wonder...are you
retarded? Well, I think we all know the answer to that question, yes,
you are retarded.
> I've also noticed that the
> dates to sell the milk are sometimes much farther in the future
> than I'd consider reasonable.
Yes, again, and I have very little idea why I'm explaining this to
you, I think that's some assumption there it would be stored,
unopened, in an approved cooler of known, constant temperature.
> > > that's not something you'd become irked about.
>
> > I don't get too worked up about things that happen in your head,
> > especially when that's the only place they happen. If you have some
> > real case here, maybe I'll comment on it, but only to the extent
> > you're not being a fucking moron, a line you have crossed here when
> > you were arguing "just because I ate it didn't mean it was edible!"
>
> You could eat grubs.
Yes, you can; I gather that's part of the army survival manual. You'd
eat all kinds of stuff if you were really hungry. However, I do not
think that's part of the warranty of merchantibility here in the
states, do you? I'd think you'd have a good case that the goods
offered were unfit, you know, just heading you off at the pass here,
but assuming the goods aren't meant to be fed to fish or lizards or
something, if they contained grubs, even if it is, strictly speaking,
edible.
Even without going to that extreme, I'd take someone's word for it
that they didn't find whatever inedible, even if it's something I
would happily eat, if they didn't eat it.
You're flunking the wason card experiment. Not eating something
doesn't prove its inedible, but eating it does prove its edible,
which, in the context of this discussion, ie a restaurant's warranty
of merchatibility or fitness of purpose or whatever, that the food in
question be, you know, fit to eat; up to some minimal standard of
quality, etc.
>That doesn't mean you'd want to pay for them.
> I gave you a real case, the milk going sour.
A consumer's rights are pretty much limited to saying "no, I don't
want to buy that." This would generally involve some refusal of the
goods. A merchant can offer what he likes for sale, and if you're not
happy with that, you may make a counter offer, which the merchant may
accept or refuse as he likes.
> > > > > You don't show such worry about people who own
> > > > > businesses that are crushed by the likes of Walmart.
>
> > > > Right, well...if someone comes up with a better business model, or is
> > > > just a better waiter, so much for the poor waiters. That's hardly
> > > > analogous, though, is it?
>
> > > It is to your odd concern for waiters getting tips.
>
> > In what way, exactly? Go ahead, explain it to me.
>
> Why should you care at all?
To start with, there's empathy. Secondly, I think people should
generally keep their promises.
> I don't see you worrying about other
> people getting paid a "fair" wage?
I don't so much care that a wage is "fair," you're, intentionally, I
think, not seeing the hinge here.
> I see you as taking the
> libertarian position that you get paid exactly what you are worth.
Right.
> If you don't like working as a waiter, get a different job.
Sure. Which doesn't excuse a customer from his obligation to tip.
> > > Since there's
> > > generally no law requiring anyone to pay tips, not paying them is
> > > perfectly legal.
>
> > Right, it's just tacky and small and illbred and a little cowardly
> > and kind of like stealing.
>
> I think you are nuts.
Yes, well, that tends to argue you're tacky and small and illbred and
a little cowardly and something of a thief.
> The whole required tip nonsense is a con.
Is it? How so? You know, it's the custom in our country.
> Pay
> the workers whatever you think they are worth, include that in the
> price of the food.
Then it's definitely stealing to pay less than the amount on the bill
if you think the service wasn't worth it.
>That view isn't stealing, it's the view in
> pretty much every other business out there.
Yeah, let me know how far you get walking out of walgreen's, saying
you should only have to pay five dollars for the six dollar package of
batteries, because you didn't like the checkout girls attitude.
> > > In fact, if the "contract" says they must be paid,
> > > this is entirely a civil question when it comes to enforcement.
>
> > I don't quite know of a bright line rule that determines which things
> > fall to which side of it, but there are some things you may recieve
> > without paying for them which are illegal, and some merely tortious,
> > and some a combination of the two. Obtaining a hotel room without
> > paying for it is illegal, and the laws generally written such that
> > you'd need something better than "I wasn't happy with the room" if you
> > planned on not paying.
>
> The issue here isn't whether or not the court would rule one way or
> the other, just that it is a civil issue,
I don't think service charges are voluntary when they're included in
the bill.
> if properly put into
> play, and it is an argument you can make in the civil courts.
Yes, you could perhaps sue later. The judge would likely attempt to
infer from your behavior how non-conforming you really found the
product.
> > >So
> > > the analogy is there after all.
>
> > It is my strong feeling that, since you will recieve at least some
> > level of service, and especially given that waitresses aren't paid
> > what we as a society have decided is a legal wage if you don't,
>
> I'm not sure where you are going with this,
I'm trying to put it in terms you understand.
> "minimum wage" laws
> aren't sometime you support, are they?
No, of course not.
> And if someone isn't getting
> paid enough, wouldn't you usually tell them to just find a job that
> pays better?
Are you missing the point on purpose?
> > sitting down and ordering a meal implies a willingness to leave a tip.
>
> So buying a burger at the McD implies that?
Are you really that retarded? Yes you are...
> > Not doing so is sort of one of those adhesion contracts you can change
> > the terms of retroactively, so I have to say your coming down on the
> > side you do is more indicative of incoherency on your part than mine,
> > and who is surprised to see Bonde being incoherent?
>
> I'd be surprised to be incoherent because I'm not incoherent.
You're being incoherent right now. You argue against adhesion
contracts where one party can change the terms, or the terms are
unclear, and yet, that's exactly what welching out on a tip is, isn't
it?
> > > > > You also don't
> > > > > seem to care about consumer rights.
>
> > > > You're begging the question there.
>
> > > Contract disputes are civil questions.
>
> > Okay, right...
>
> This reminds me of the Seinfeld where Jerry bet Kramer than he'd
> never rebuild his apartment with "levels". Later Kramer said that
> he'd decided not to rebuild the apartment with levels so the bet
> was off. Seinfeld pointed out, "That's what the bet was about!" You
> have been insisting that not paying for a tip was a criminal
> question
In this case it is, yeah. That's why the police came, don't you
know.
>while I've been insisting that it is a civil one.
Actually, it's probably not even a civil one, it's just, you know,
bad manners.
> > >Both (all) sides of a
> > > contract have the legal right to take the contract to the courts or
> > > to whatever body was agreed to decide the question.
>
> > Okay.
>
> > >You can't see
> > > that for the question of a set off of the tip in the restaurant
> > > bill in the instant discussion.
>
> > I don't think it applies in this case. Not paying the bill in a
> > restaurant is a crime.
>
> Disputing a transaction and withholding payment until the dispute
> is resolved isn't a crime in my option, it's a civil question.
Your "option" [sic] means relatively little, as you are a retarded
liar.
> At
> common law, I think it should clearly be a civil question. But it
> is possible to write statutory laws that override anything in
> common law.
One of which is "defrauding an innkeeper."
> > I would not be surprised if that includes, you
> > know, any service charges or donations to the widow's and orphan's
> > fund, or whatever.
>
> You are aware that it is possible to buy something with a Visa card
> and then "dispute" the charge, right?
I bet you wouldn't have to do too much of that and you've commited
fraud, which is, you know, mostly illegal.
> > > > > And it's all so bogus anyway.
>
> > > > What you wrote above sure is.
>
> > > > > If you want people who work in restaurants to get paid well, just
> > > > > pay them more.
>
> > > > Or pay them in the first place. Well, I do that, Bonde, and I think
> > > > you should too.
>
> > > You mean you have restaruant employees and you follow the labour
> > > laws and actually pay them?
>
> > No, I tip generously, and wouldn't generally stiff someone.
>
> I don't have a problem with you tipping generously. I have a
> problem with you telling other people what to do. I also have a
> problem with what I feel is a misrepresentation and game playing
> with costs of a service.
Which is incoherent, since elsewhere you argue restaurants should
just raise the cost of food and bill you that amount, which would give
you even less non-criminal room to put the service at issue.
> > > Because I wouldn't violate such rules
> > > in similar situations.
>
> > Yeah, I just bet.
>
> If the accepted rules are to tip a certain percent, I do that.
Yeah, I just bet.
> > > Or do you mean you tip? Because, as I said,
> > > I do follow whatever the local conventions are, to the best of my
> > > knowlege of what they are.
>
> > One of which is, unless there's something you feel worth taking to
> > the manager, you should leave a 15% tip.
>
> This is like a tax on what the prices are in the shop.
Okay, sort of. I mean, the effect to you, the consumer isn't very
different, except presumably the waitress is more directly
incentivized. It's also not all that different from, you know, if they
just raised the price of the food and then paid everyone more. I think
that's what they do in at least the less metropolitan parts of
Australia, although even there, between you and I bet some people
leave a couple few dollars on the table after all.
> Would you
> accept this in other industries?
I don't quite know how to break this to you, but in other industries
the price you pay includes, you know, everyone's wages or salaries, so
I'm not sure what the difference really is except in restaurants, and
maybe a few other places, you can get something without paying for it
if you're tacky, badly brought up, small, cowardly, and something of a
thief.
> > > > I feel rather strongly anyone who doesn't leave a tip
> > > > is something of a thief.
>
> > > I don't see that,
>
> > Well, you're wrong.
>
> > >although as I said, I follow whatever the rules
> > > are.
>
> > One of which is, unless there's something you feel worth taking to
> > the manager, you should leave a 15% tip.
>
> > > > If there's a problem with the service, well,
> > > > talk to the manager. You know, unless it's something silly and you
> > > > know it like they (horrors!) put a slice of lemon in your tea when you
> > > > asked for no lemon and when you complained, they just took the lemon
> > > > out.
>
> > > How about the restaurant scene if "Five Easy Pieces"?
>
> > Yeah, how about that?
>
> Should he leave a tip?
For what? He might have to pay for some broken glasses, and perhaps
face charges of public misconduct and perhaps even assault, since he
sweeps the glasses off the table and onto the waitress, but he's
obnoxious enough "I want you to hold it between your knees" that they
actually throw him and his party out of the Denny's before any
exchange of consideration can take place.
> > >Who was wrong
> > > there in your opinion?
>
> > Jack was, when he said "I want you to hold it between your knees."
> > That's. you know, you have to leave now time.
>
> Not allowing reasonable substitutions
If there's some special price, substitution might not be all that
reasonable.
>in a seat down restaurant
> suggests that the "service" aspect of the restaurant is lacking.
Perhaps, and your remedy there is to say "but please bend a rule for
me," and if they so no, take your business elsewhere. They have no
obligation to you other than to deliver what they promise.
> They expect a tip for that?
Yes, and justly so, I'd say. You still will want that brought out to
you, right? and your coffee refilled? and the table cleared away? And
anything else you come up with, the ketchup, the tabasco sauce, extra
napkins, brought out to you?
> Keep in mind that fast food restaurants
> routinely allow what I think are rather complicated and perhaps
> unwarranted substitutions
That's their right, too.
> No tip is required.
Nor is service initiated with any expectation thereof.
> > Up to that point, well,
> > If the restaurant has a "no substitutions" breakfast policy, well,
> > that's the policy. You can ask they suspend it in your case, but if
> > they say "no," well, they are well within their rights, huh?
>
> I don't disagree that they are within their rights.
Finally, you said something that was not retarded! Good for you! I
feel like...who's the lady who finally got Helen Keller to figure out
the stuff running over her hand was water and to make the sign for it?
> > You are
> > free to think that excessively inflexible, or alienating customers,
> > and you may be right, but it is their policy to set and enforce as
> > they see fit.
>
> Like Jack can decide whether or not to leave a tip?
No, not without, you know, a certain opprobrium.
> You seem to
> have a one sided view on transactions,
You only think that because you're retarded.
> instead of treating both
> sides as equals.
Whatever that means.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Let's see, my argument was completely correct, the police dropped
the stupid charges. Now we only have to wait and see if the people
unlawfully arrested sue. I hope they do.
> > > You may recall the girl suing McDonalds for
> > > (she says) making her fat?
> >
> > Does McDonalds have a duty to sell foods that are safe to consume?
>
> That might be an interesting discussion to have with someone who
> wasn't retarded and basically honest, like Kim or someone. You,
> however, are a retarded liar, so fuck off.
>
You still haven't shown me any lies that I've alleged posted.
Furthermore, if I'm retarded and what I say is correct and what you
say isn't, you must be something even worse than retarded.
> > > I also see the Center for Science in the
> > > Public Interest is suing Denny's for serving food that violates the
> > > various implied warranties of merchantibility because of the high
> > > sodium content and that the sodium content is not printed on the menu,
> > > except it is printed on the menu, except, in a very Bonde like
> > > fashion, the CSPI is claiming even when you print it on the menu no
> > > one reads the menu so you just shouldn't be able to sell, you know, a
> > > t-bone and eggs for breakie.
> >
> > Do people peruse the menu?
>
> What a retarded question.
>
This goes directly to whether or not printing something in the menu
gives someone constructive notice of the terms of the alleged
agreement. If the waitress informs the patrons that they are over
the limit and will be charged a special fee for large groups, I
think that is clearly telling the consumer and being upfront about
it.
> >Does the menu provide constructive
> > notice of a contract term?
>
> what a retarded question.
>
> > >http://www.foodliabilitylaw.com/2009/08/articles/uniform-commercial-c...
> >
> > > > When the milk seller is pushing the dates to save money,
> >
> > > You know, in your imaginary case.
> >
> > Since this milk seems to regularly go bad before the sell by date,
> > and this isn't true very often of other milk, I have to conclude
> > that the milk seller is pushing dates.
>
> Buy some other kind of milk? If you're aware of this problem and you
> keep subjecting yourself to it, I have to really wonder...are you
> retarded? Well, I think we all know the answer to that question, yes,
> you are retarded.
>
I didn't know that the milk was going to repeatedly have this
problem. I now see that it does and will avoid that milk.
> > I've also noticed that the
> > dates to sell the milk are sometimes much farther in the future
> > than I'd consider reasonable.
>
> Yes, again, and I have very little idea why I'm explaining this to
> you, I think that's some assumption there it would be stored,
> unopened, in an approved cooler of known, constant temperature.
>
So you don't think that the sell by date, which is invariably
before the use by date doesn't mean that it should be good to use
at least that long? In your absurd defence of almost any business
practice, you seem to really go too far.
> > > > that's not something you'd become irked about.
> >
> > > I don't get too worked up about things that happen in your head,
> > > especially when that's the only place they happen. If you have some
> > > real case here, maybe I'll comment on it, but only to the extent
> > > you're not being a fucking moron, a line you have crossed here when
> > > you were arguing "just because I ate it didn't mean it was edible!"
> >
> > You could eat grubs.
>
> Yes, you can; I gather that's part of the army survival manual. You'd
> eat all kinds of stuff if you were really hungry. However, I do not
> think that's part of the warranty of merchantibility here in the
> states, do you? I'd think you'd have a good case that the goods
> offered were unfit, you know, just heading you off at the pass here,
> but assuming the goods aren't meant to be fed to fish or lizards or
> something, if they contained grubs, even if it is, strictly speaking,
> edible.
>
This all goes to what "edible" means which then goes to
"satisfaction" means.
> Even without going to that extreme, I'd take someone's word for it
> that they didn't find whatever inedible, even if it's something I
> would happily eat, if they didn't eat it.
>
I'm not disputing that this is useful to help make your case. All I
claimed is that it's a civil question either way.
> You're flunking the wason card experiment. Not eating something
> doesn't prove its inedible, but eating it does prove its edible,
> which, in the context of this discussion, ie a restaurant's warranty
> of merchatibility or fitness of purpose or whatever, that the food in
> question be, you know, fit to eat; up to some minimal standard of
> quality, etc.
>
I don't believe whether you ate it or not defines this as some
bright line.
> >That doesn't mean you'd want to pay for them.
> > I gave you a real case, the milk going sour.
>
> A consumer's rights are pretty much limited to saying "no, I don't
> want to buy that." This would generally involve some refusal of the
> goods. A merchant can offer what he likes for sale, and if you're not
> happy with that, you may make a counter offer, which the merchant may
> accept or refuse as he likes.
>
I think you are mistaking forming a contact with the complete set
of rights that a consumer has. You act like once you agree to a
contract, anything goes from the one who is supposed to deliver the
goods. Well, anything at least if you eat it.
> > > > > > You don't show such worry about people who own
> > > > > > businesses that are crushed by the likes of Walmart.
> >
> > > > > Right, well...if someone comes up with a better business model, or is
> > > > > just a better waiter, so much for the poor waiters. That's hardly
> > > > > analogous, though, is it?
> >
> > > > It is to your odd concern for waiters getting tips.
> >
> > > In what way, exactly? Go ahead, explain it to me.
> >
> > Why should you care at all?
>
> To start with, there's empathy. Secondly, I think people should
> generally keep their promises.
>
I'm not sure what that has to do with tips, which should be a
choice.
> > I don't see you worrying about other
> > people getting paid a "fair" wage?
>
> I don't so much care that a wage is "fair," you're, intentionally, I
> think, not seeing the hinge here.
>
Then I'm not sure what your point is. If you don't care if waiters
get a "fair" wage, why do you care if they get an unfair wage plus
tips to make a "fair" wage?
> > I see you as taking the
> > libertarian position that you get paid exactly what you are worth.
>
> Right.
>
> > If you don't like working as a waiter, get a different job.
>
> Sure. Which doesn't excuse a customer from his obligation to tip.
>
A tip isn't an obligation. By definition, it is supposed to be good
service. I suspect it came out of the idea that rich people lord it
over the serfs handing them a couple of coins for cleaning the
horse shit off their shoes for them. You'll notice that there is no
such rule in professional services. People who that sort of thing
just charge whatever the hell it is they think they can get away
with.
> > > > Since there's
> > > > generally no law requiring anyone to pay tips, not paying them is
> > > > perfectly legal.
> >
> > > Right, it's just tacky and small and illbred and a little cowardly
> > > and kind of like stealing.
> >
> > I think you are nuts.
>
> Yes, well, that tends to argue you're tacky and small and illbred and
> a little cowardly and something of a thief.
>
You've called me, repeatedly, a "retarded liar". You've claimed
that I'm a "thief". You called me "tacky", "small" and "illbred" as
well as a "little cowardly". All I've done is express my views,
which to any available facts are actually correct. I've also said
that when the convention is to pay tips, I follow that convention
even though I don't like it.
> > The whole required tip nonsense is a con.
>
> Is it? How so? You know, it's the custom in our country.
>
It's plainly an attempt to charge more than you admit to charging
at the outset. If I get a quote to do a job, and then I'm later
told it will be more, I'm going to need a good reason for it being
more. If I asked for changes, or more or something or something
like that, I'm possibly going to see more cost. I think I should be
told if a substitution at a restaurant will change the price. I
think I have the right to be informed of the costs of buying
something.
> > Pay
> > the workers whatever you think they are worth, include that in the
> > price of the food.
>
> Then it's definitely stealing to pay less than the amount on the bill
> if you think the service wasn't worth it.
>
As a buyer, it's my job to pay as little as possible. This is how
the market works. It's the seller's job to charge as much as
possible. The problem comes in when either side attempts to trick
or con the other. I think that requiring tips is a con. Just be
upfront about what something costs.
> >That view isn't stealing, it's the view in
> > pretty much every other business out there.
>
> Yeah, let me know how far you get walking out of walgreen's, saying
> you should only have to pay five dollars for the six dollar package of
> batteries, because you didn't like the checkout girls attitude.
>
Walgreen's doesn't separate the check out chick cost from the item
you are buying, does it? That's what is happening at a restaurant.
If you truly inform people of a mandatory charge, then they are
agreeing to it. But that's not the game. The game is to hide that
charge so you put up ads saying that things cost 30% less than
you'll actually pay.
> > > > In fact, if the "contract" says they must be paid,
> > > > this is entirely a civil question when it comes to enforcement.
> >
> > > I don't quite know of a bright line rule that determines which things
> > > fall to which side of it, but there are some things you may recieve
> > > without paying for them which are illegal, and some merely tortious,
> > > and some a combination of the two. Obtaining a hotel room without
> > > paying for it is illegal, and the laws generally written such that
> > > you'd need something better than "I wasn't happy with the room" if you
> > > planned on not paying.
> >
> > The issue here isn't whether or not the court would rule one way or
> > the other, just that it is a civil issue,
>
> I don't think service charges are voluntary when they're included in
> the bill.
>
It's still a civil issue. You think that the cops will usually come
to your store and help you in these circumstances? If someone is
shoplifting, that's not the same thing as putting the cost into
dispute and demanding a civil trial.
> > if properly put into
> > play, and it is an argument you can make in the civil courts.
>
> Yes, you could perhaps sue later. The judge would likely attempt to
> infer from your behavior how non-conforming you really found the
> product.
>
So you are agreeing with me?
> > > >So
> > > > the analogy is there after all.
> >
> > > It is my strong feeling that, since you will recieve at least some
> > > level of service, and especially given that waitresses aren't paid
> > > what we as a society have decided is a legal wage if you don't,
> >
> > I'm not sure where you are going with this,
>
> I'm trying to put it in terms you understand.
>
If you use legal terms, it might make sense.
> > "minimum wage" laws
> > aren't something you support, are they?
>
> No, of course not.
>
But you are supporting forcing the buyer to pay more based on an
unwritten and unspoken standard course of conduct in the industry?
I'm not saying that course of conduct and standard business
practice can't stick someone to something. But the idea that
tipping is such a thing is really absurd. First of all, the
restaurant industry is an industry that people in the industry know
about. But anyone can walk into a restaurant. It is silly to assume
that they all know what the standard business practice and course
of conduct is for that industry.
> > And if someone isn't getting
> > paid enough, wouldn't you usually tell them to just find a job that
> > pays better?
>
> Are you missing the point on purpose?
>
You are telling me to pay money that the menu didn't say I had to
pay because that's the usual convention. I said that I do pay that
but I don't agree that I should have to. I think that I should be
able to decide if and when to tip and how much and that I should be
able to base this on level of service as I see fit.
> > > sitting down and ordering a meal implies a willingness to leave a tip.
> >
> > So buying a burger at the McD implies that?
>
> Are you really that retarded? Yes you are...
>
You really think that people understand all these rules? Where did
the amount of the tip come from? Why does it keep going up? Don't
say inflation because the restaurant bill is also going up and tip
is based on that. How would someone know if they are to tip at a
restaurant like McD? Is it because they don't bother to bus the
tables until trash is everywhere? How about restaurants that you
pay for the food first but they have someone going around filling
up the water and tea?
> > > Not doing so is sort of one of those adhesion contracts you can change
> > > the terms of retroactively, so I have to say your coming down on the
> > > side you do is more indicative of incoherency on your part than mine,
> > > and who is surprised to see Bonde being incoherent?
> >
> > I'd be surprised to be incoherent because I'm not incoherent.
>
> You're being incoherent right now. You argue against adhesion
> contracts where one party can change the terms, or the terms are
> unclear, and yet, that's exactly what welching out on a tip is, isn't
> it?
>
An adhesion contract is a predefined written contract that has
terms that are not bargained for by the weaker party, the consumer
usually. Tipping or not isn't a written contract. It is apparently
an industry convention, a course of conduct, a standard practice,
something like that.
And companies are being force to not change adhesion contracts
without informing those they are under and allowing them to opt
out. This is a good change although it certainly isn't pervasive
yet, and it was always the actual law.
> > > > > > You also don't
> > > > > > seem to care about consumer rights.
> >
> > > > > You're begging the question there.
> >
> > > > Contract disputes are civil questions.
> >
> > > Okay, right...
> >
> > This reminds me of the Seinfeld where Jerry bet Kramer than he'd
> > never rebuild his apartment with "levels". Later Kramer said that
> > he'd decided not to rebuild the apartment with levels so the bet
> > was off. Seinfeld pointed out, "That's what the bet was about!" You
> > have been insisting that not paying for a tip was a criminal
> > question
>
> In this case it is, yeah. That's why the police came, don't you
> know.
>
They showed up because they were called with a claim that someone
was stealing or something like that. If the police are called, for
whatever reason, they should show up. If someone calls them for a
no good reason, they should be charged for that. I'd support
charging the restaurant for the wasted time. Of course the cop
arrested the people so I guess that argument should be dropped to
in this instance.
> >while I've been insisting that it is a civil one.
>
> Actually, it's probably not even a civil one, it's just, you know,
> bad manners.
>
It's probably less bad manners than you calling me a "retard liar".
But you claimed it was a criminal act. I said it was a civil one.
If you now think it's not even worth a civil action, almost
anything is capable of being made into a civil action, that's up to
you.
> > > >Both (all) sides of a
> > > > contract have the legal right to take the contract to the courts or
> > > > to whatever body was agreed to decide the question.
> >
> > > Okay.
> >
> > > >You can't see
> > > > that for the question of a set off of the tip in the restaurant
> > > > bill in the instant discussion.
> >
> > > I don't think it applies in this case. Not paying the bill in a
> > > restaurant is a crime.
> >
> > Disputing a transaction and withholding payment until the dispute
> > is resolved isn't a crime in my option, it's a civil question.
>
> Your "option" [sic] means relatively little, as you are a retarded
> liar.
>
In my "opinion". If I spell check and choose the wrong word, it's
just a typo, PPM.
> > At
> > common law, I think it should clearly be a civil question. But it
> > is possible to write statutory laws that override anything in
> > common law.
>
> One of which is "defrauding an innkeeper."
>
I suspect that the context matters. It is possible to write checks
and have it be a criminal offence. Usually, however, the issue is
civil. If you disagree about the charges for something, that is
civil.
> > > I would not be surprised if that includes, you
> > > know, any service charges or donations to the widow's and orphan's
> > > fund, or whatever.
> >
> > You are aware that it is possible to buy something with a Visa card
> > and then "dispute" the charge, right?
>
> I bet you wouldn't have to do too much of that and you've commited
> fraud, which is, you know, mostly illegal.
>
I think that if you just did that as a regular thing that you'd
likely have your card taken away. Also, disputing the charges
doesn't really mean you are supposed to just keep the items. In
fact, if you are unwilling to give them back in a condition that
you got them, that would seem to be a good argument for disallowing
the dispute. VISA has contracts with its merchants regarding all
this, so it's a civil question again.
> > > > > > And it's all so bogus anyway.
> >
> > > > > What you wrote above sure is.
> >
> > > > > > If you want people who work in restaurants to get paid well, just
> > > > > > pay them more.
> >
> > > > > Or pay them in the first place. Well, I do that, Bonde, and I think
> > > > > you should too.
> >
> > > > You mean you have restaruant employees and you follow the labour
> > > > laws and actually pay them?
> >
> > > No, I tip generously, and wouldn't generally stiff someone.
> >
> > I don't have a problem with you tipping generously. I have a
> > problem with you telling other people what to do. I also have a
> > problem with what I feel is a misrepresentation and game playing
> > with costs of a service.
>
> Which is incoherent, since elsewhere you argue restaurants should
> just raise the cost of food and bill you that amount, which would give
> you even less non-criminal room to put the service at issue.
>
I think that running out without a word is stealing and it is a
criminal offence (as well as a civil one). I think putting the
price into dispute isn't a criminal offence. I do think that
restaurants should just pay their employees like normal businesses
do.
> > > > Because I wouldn't violate such rules
> > > > in similar situations.
> >
> > > Yeah, I just bet.
> >
> > If the accepted rules are to tip a certain percent, I do that.
>
> Yeah, I just bet.
>
What's that supposed to mean?
> > > > Or do you mean you tip? Because, as I said,
> > > > I do follow whatever the local conventions are, to the best of my
> > > > knowlege of what they are.
> >
> > > One of which is, unless there's something you feel worth taking to
> > > the manager, you should leave a 15% tip.
> >
> > This is like a tax on what the prices are in the shop.
>
> Okay, sort of. I mean, the effect to you, the consumer isn't very
> different, except presumably the waitress is more directly
> incentivized. It's also not all that different from, you know, if they
> just raised the price of the food and then paid everyone more. I think
> that's what they do in at least the less metropolitan parts of
> Australia, although even there, between you and I bet some people
> leave a couple few dollars on the table after all.
>
Maybe they do that for good service.
> > Would you
> > accept this in other industries?
>
> I don't quite know how to break this to you, but in other industries
> the price you pay includes, you know, everyone's wages or salaries, so
> I'm not sure what the difference really is except in restaurants, and
> maybe a few other places, you can get something without paying for it
> if you're tacky, badly brought up, small, cowardly, and something of a
> thief.
>
So you wouldn't accept weird things like expecting tips in other
industries?
> > > > > I feel rather strongly anyone who doesn't leave a tip
> > > > > is something of a thief.
> >
> > > > I don't see that,
> >
> > > Well, you're wrong.
> >
> > > >although as I said, I follow whatever the rules
> > > > are.
> >
> > > One of which is, unless there's something you feel worth taking to
> > > the manager, you should leave a 15% tip.
> >
> > > > > If there's a problem with the service, well,
> > > > > talk to the manager. You know, unless it's something silly and you
> > > > > know it like they (horrors!) put a slice of lemon in your tea when you
> > > > > asked for no lemon and when you complained, they just took the lemon
> > > > > out.
> >
> > > > How about the restaurant scene if "Five Easy Pieces"?
> >
> > > Yeah, how about that?
> >
> > Should he leave a tip?
>
> For what? He might have to pay for some broken glasses, and perhaps
> face charges of public misconduct and perhaps even assault, since he
> sweeps the glasses off the table and onto the waitress, but he's
> obnoxious enough "I want you to hold it between your knees" that they
> actually throw him and his party out of the Denny's before any
> exchange of consideration can take place.
>
So you think that the chicken between her knees was just an
invitation to treat?
> > > >Who was wrong
> > > > there in your opinion?
> >
> > > Jack was, when he said "I want you to hold it between your knees."
> > > That's. you know, you have to leave now time.
> >
> > Not allowing reasonable substitutions
>
> If there's some special price, substitution might not be all that
> reasonable.
>
I was told that a few days ago, that there were no substitutions on
the special at the special price. So I accepted that.
> >in a seat down restaurant
> > suggests that the "service" aspect of the restaurant is lacking.
>
> Perhaps, and your remedy there is to say "but please bend a rule for
> me," and if they so no, take your business elsewhere. They have no
> obligation to you other than to deliver what they promise.
>
I'm not claiming that they have a legal obligation to provide the
service that I request.
> > They expect a tip for that?
>
> Yes, and justly so, I'd say. You still will want that brought out to
> you, right? and your coffee refilled? and the table cleared away? And
> anything else you come up with, the ketchup, the tabasco sauce, extra
> napkins, brought out to you?
>
You aren't giving me the option to get them myself? Again, I'd
include this in the price of the product.
> > Keep in mind that fast food restaurants
> > routinely allow what I think are rather complicated and perhaps
> > unwarranted substitutions
>
> That's their right, too.
>
> > No tip is required.
>
> Nor is service initiated with any expectation thereof.
>
> > > Up to that point, well,
> > > If the restaurant has a "no substitutions" breakfast policy, well,
> > > that's the policy. You can ask they suspend it in your case, but if
> > > they say "no," well, they are well within their rights, huh?
> >
> > I don't disagree that they are within their rights.
>
> Finally, you said something that was not retarded! Good for you! I
> feel like...who's the lady who finally got Helen Keller to figure out
> the stuff running over her hand was water and to make the sign for it?
>
Meredith Baxter Birney?
> > > You are
> > > free to think that excessively inflexible, or alienating customers,
> > > and you may be right, but it is their policy to set and enforce as
> > > they see fit.
> >
> > Like Jack can decide whether or not to leave a tip?
>
> No, not without, you know, a certain opprobrium.
>
Kind of the point of having a service host is that they will be
flexible within reason.
> > You seem to
> > have a one sided view on transactions,
>
> You only think that because you're retarded.
>
> > instead of treating both
> > sides as equals.
>
> Whatever that means.
>
You always have the consumer in the wrong, because he doesn't pay
whatever the restaurant decides he should pay.
Opus the Penguin
Did you read the article?
http://consumerist.com/2009/11/college-students-arrested-for-refusing
-to-pay-tip.html
"They had to find their own napkins and cutlery while their waitress
caught a smoke, had to ask the bar for soda refills, and had to wait
over an hour for salad and wings."
No, they did not receive the service they were charged for. And the
restaurant didn't even offer to split the tip with them on the
grounds that they themselves had provided part of the service being
charged for.
plausible prose man
No, and this is another retarded lie.
> the police dropped
> the stupid charges.
Well, the prosecutor did, anyway. Possibly because the people
involved had gotten around to paying the service fee.
> Now we only have to wait and see if the people
> unlawfully arrested
No one was unlawfully arrested.
> > > > You may recall the girl suing McDonalds for
> > > > (she says) making her fat?
>
> > > Does McDonalds have a duty to sell foods that are safe to consume?
>
> > That might be an interesting discussion to have with someone who
> > wasn't retarded and basically honest, like Kim or someone. You,
> > however, are a retarded liar, so fuck off.
>
> You still haven't shown me any lies that I've alleged posted.
Just up above, when you say what you said is correct. That's a lie,
and you know it. Nothing you say is correct.
> Furthermore, if I'm retarded and what I say is correct and what you
> say isn't, you must be something even worse than retarded.
Good thing I won't have to worry about that, huh?
Defrauding an innkeeper is a crime, I don't know why you keep dancing
around that, but it is. If the establishment includes a service charge
in its bill, well, not paying that service charge is a crime.
> > > > I also see the Center for Science in the
> > > > Public Interest is suing Denny's for serving food that violates the
> > > > various implied warranties of merchantibility because of the high
> > > > sodium content and that the sodium content is not printed on the menu,
> > > > except it is printed on the menu, except, in a very Bonde like
> > > > fashion, the CSPI is claiming even when you print it on the menu no
> > > > one reads the menu so you just shouldn't be able to sell, you know, a
> > > > t-bone and eggs for breakie.
>
> > > Do people peruse the menu?
>
> > What a retarded question.
>
> This goes directly to whether or not printing something in the menu
> gives someone constructive notice of the terms of the alleged
> agreement.
I don't know that it does, actually. I don't always look at the menu
in a restaurant where I go very often; you know, I pretty much know
what I want. Still, I'd sure feel like an asshole trying to argue the
restaurant had failed in its duty to inform me of something if it
turns out it was printed in the menu, and I'd sure feel like an
asshole trying to argue that I really cared all that much about
something if I couldn't be bothered to look at the menu to see if the
spaghetti had meat sauce or not.
> If the waitress informs the patrons that they are over
> the limit and will be charged a special fee for large groups, I
> think that is clearly telling the consumer and being upfront about
> it.
Yeah, so's printing it in the menu. A reasonable person would say
that, so if you think differently, well, that's you being a retarded
liar again, and just trolling around.
So, this part of the discussion is concluded.
> > >Does the menu provide constructive
> > > notice of a contract term?
>
> > what a retarded question.
>
> > > >http://www.foodliabilitylaw.com/2009/08/articles/uniform-commercial-c...
>
> > > > > When the milk seller is pushing the dates to save money,
>
> > > > You know, in your imaginary case.
>
> > > Since this milk seems to regularly go bad before the sell by date,
> > > and this isn't true very often of other milk, I have to conclude
> > > that the milk seller is pushing dates.
>
> > Buy some other kind of milk? If you're aware of this problem and you
> > keep subjecting yourself to it, I have to really wonder...are you
> > retarded? Well, I think we all know the answer to that question, yes,
> > you are retarded.
>
> I didn't know that the milk was going to repeatedly have this
> problem. I now see that it does and will avoid that milk.
Hey, great. I'm sure they're much happier not to have your business,
too, since dealing with someone like you makes life worse for all of
their customers who aren't retarded liars.
> > > I've also noticed that the
> > > dates to sell the milk are sometimes much farther in the future
> > > than I'd consider reasonable.
>
> > Yes, again, and I have very little idea why I'm explaining this to
> > you, I think that's some assumption there it would be stored,
> > unopened, in an approved cooler of known, constant temperature.
>
> So you don't think that the sell by date, which is invariably
> before the use by date doesn't mean that it should be good to use
> at least that long?
I do not recall having seen a package that had both a "sell by" and a
"use by" date, but I take away different meanings in each case.
> In your absurd defence of almost any business
> practice,
Another retarded lie.
> > > > > that's not something you'd become irked about.
>
> > > > I don't get too worked up about things that happen in your head,
> > > > especially when that's the only place they happen. If you have some
> > > > real case here, maybe I'll comment on it, but only to the extent
> > > > you're not being a fucking moron, a line you have crossed here when
> > > > you were arguing "just because I ate it didn't mean it was edible!"
>
> > > You could eat grubs.
>
> > Yes, you can; I gather that's part of the army survival manual. You'd
> > eat all kinds of stuff if you were really hungry. However, I do not
> > think that's part of the warranty of merchantibility here in the
> > states, do you? I'd think you'd have a good case that the goods
> > offered were unfit, you know, just heading you off at the pass here,
> > but assuming the goods aren't meant to be fed to fish or lizards or
> > something, if they contained grubs, even if it is, strictly speaking,
> > edible.
>
> This all goes to what "edible" means
Yes, and, um...although in the very strictest sense, grubs are
"edible," do you think that's quite the meaning which attaches in the
implied "warrant of merchantibility" ...Oh, I get it, you're being a
retarded liar again, aren't you?
> > Even without going to that extreme, I'd take someone's word for it
> > that they didn't find whatever inedible, even if it's something I
> > would happily eat, if they didn't eat it.
>
> I'm not disputing that this is useful to help make your case. All I
> claimed is that it's a civil question either way.
Except when its on the bill. Do you get that?
> > You're flunking the wason card experiment. Not eating something
> > doesn't prove its inedible, but eating it does prove its edible,
> > which, in the context of this discussion, ie a restaurant's warranty
> > of merchatibility or fitness of purpose or whatever, that the food in
> > question be, you know, fit to eat; up to some minimal standard of
> > quality, etc.
>
> I don't believe whether you ate it or not defines this as some
> bright line.
Well, but you're a retarded liar. Try not to think in such strange,
convoluted ways, and be honest and forthright and of some modicum of
intelligence for a change.
> > >That doesn't mean you'd want to pay for them.
> > > I gave you a real case, the milk going sour.
>
> > A consumer's rights are pretty much limited to saying "no, I don't
> > want to buy that." This would generally involve some refusal of the
> > goods. A merchant can offer what he likes for sale, and if you're not
> > happy with that, you may make a counter offer, which the merchant may
> > accept or refuse as he likes.
>
> I think you are mistaking forming a contact with the complete set
> of rights that a consumer has.
Forming a contract is the complete set of rights a consumer has. It
is also the complete set of rights a merchant has.
> You act like once you agree to a
> contract, anything goes from the one who is supposed to deliver the
> goods. Well, anything at least if you eat it.
Yes, to unretarded honest people, accepting the goods would go a
long, long way towards showing they were acceptible.
> > > > > > > You don't show such worry about people who own
> > > > > > > businesses that are crushed by the likes of Walmart.
>
> > > > > > Right, well...if someone comes up with a better business model, or is
> > > > > > just a better waiter, so much for the poor waiters. That's hardly
> > > > > > analogous, though, is it?
>
> > > > > It is to your odd concern for waiters getting tips.
>
> > > > In what way, exactly? Go ahead, explain it to me.
>
> > > Why should you care at all?
>
> > To start with, there's empathy. Secondly, I think people should
> > generally keep their promises.
>
> I'm not sure what that has to do with tips,
Sitting at a table like that is generally understood to be a promise
to leave a tip.
> which should be a
> choice.
Well, it's not. Customers and waiters sure don't act like that, huh?
> > > I don't see you worrying about other
> > > people getting paid a "fair" wage?
>
> > I don't so much care that a wage is "fair," you're, intentionally, I
> > think, not seeing the hinge here.
>
> Then I'm not sure what your point is.
If it was generally understood that, unless something so terrible
happened you'd speak to the manager about it, you'd leave two animal
crackers and a Wham! CD, well, if you don't leave two animal crackers
and a Wham! CD, you're not keeping your promises. "fair wages" don't
enter into it. It's keeping your promises.
> If you don't care if waiters
> get a "fair" wage, why do you care if they get an unfair wage plus
> tips to make a "fair" wage?
Because of my understanding of the social conventions.
> > > I see you as taking the
> > > libertarian position that you get paid exactly what you are worth.
>
> > Right.
>
> > > If you don't like working as a waiter, get a different job.
>
> > Sure. Which doesn't excuse a customer from his obligation to tip.
>
> A tip isn't an obligation.
Yeah, except it is.
> By definition, it is supposed to be good
> service.
It's sure a widely understood, accepted, and expected custom for it
to be a voluntary reward for good service.
>
> > > > > Since there's
> > > > > generally no law requiring anyone to pay tips, not paying them is
> > > > > perfectly legal.
>
> > > > Right, it's just tacky and small and illbred and a little cowardly
> > > > and kind of like stealing.
>
> > > I think you are nuts.
>
> > Yes, well, that tends to argue you're tacky and small and illbred and
> > a little cowardly and something of a thief.
>
> You've called me, repeatedly, a "retarded liar".
That's because you're a retarded liar. Being intelligent and honest
like I am, well, that comes with a certain forthrightness, too.
>You've claimed
> that I'm a "thief". You called me "tacky", "small" and "illbred" as
> well as a "little cowardly".
Right.
> All I've done is express my views,
and your views are small, tacky, illbred, and a little cowardly, and
all in all they argue you're something of a thief.
> which to any available facts are actually correct.
I'll say.
> > > The whole required tip nonsense is a con.
>
> > Is it? How so? You know, it's the custom in our country.
>
> It's plainly an attempt to charge more than you admit to charging
> at the outset.
You know, if you want to pretend the custom of tipping is less widely
understood and expected than it is. Given that tipped employees are
specifically exempted from what is otherwise the legal minimum wage,
you have to figure tipped employees are slaves, sort of, or it is
widely understood, accepted, and expected that you'll leave 15%, at
least, unless something goes so terribly wrong you'd speak to the
manager.
> If I get a quote to do a job, and then I'm later
> told it will be more, I'm going to need a good reason for it being
> more.
Also, often when you get your oil changed, or you buy new tires, or
whatever, you'll find there are some service fees over and above the
advertized price.
> If I asked for changes, or more or something or something
> like that, I'm possibly going to see more cost.
You know, you're not just buying tires, you're paying someone to put
them on and "restock," whatever the hell that is, and dispose of the
old ones, and whatever. Whatever your cell phone bill is supposed to
be, it's usually about 10, 20% more than that, once you charge in all
the taxes and tax-like public utility fees.
> I think I should be
> told if a substitution at a restaurant will change the price.
Okay, sure. You know, depending. If, when told I can have "two eggs,
any style," and I pull a Bob Ward and I say "hatched, grown up, and
deep fried," well, should I really think I can have that for two
dollars or whatever the workingman's special is at the busy bee?
> I
> think I have the right to be informed of the costs of buying
> something.
My sympathy to whoever finds themselves tasked with getting some piece
of information through the dense material of your skull. Really, they
should have a taser with them, since the only way I can see to get you
to shut up and listen and not come up with some retarded
counterexample or argument would be severe electric shock.
"what if I?...."
SzzzzszZZZZZzzzszzs
"ahhhhhhhh!"
DO you get it yet?
"well, but the milk..."
SSSSZZZZzzsssZZZZ
"aiiiiiiiieee!!!"
NOW do you understand?
"five sided house..."
SSSSzzzssszzssssZZZZsss
"Oh, god, god, make it stop! I can't take any more! I get it! I get
it! I'll stop being so retarded and dishonest! I can't substitute
tomatoes for potatoes, the menu says "no substitutions," and you don't
have side orders of toast, and I'm expected to leave 15% of the bill
unless something so terrible happens I should speak to the manager."
HERE endeth the session.
> > > Pay
> > > the workers whatever you think they are worth, include that in the
> > > price of the food.
>
> > Then it's definitely stealing to pay less than the amount on the bill
> > if you think the service wasn't worth it.
>
> As a buyer, it's my job to pay as little as possible.
Careful...oh, I don't really have you hooked up to a taser, do I?
That was just a beautiful dream...sigh.
> This is how
> the market works. It's the seller's job to charge as much as
> possible.
eh...
> The problem comes in when either side attempts to trick
> or con the other.
You know, like watching the whole movie and enjoying themselves and
then try to get their money back because the movie was a little
scratchy?
> I think that requiring tips is a con. Just be
> upfront about what something costs.
"a service charge of 18% is included for parties of 8 or more."
> > >That view isn't stealing, it's the view in
> > > pretty much every other business out there.
>
> > Yeah, let me know how far you get walking out of walgreen's, saying
> > you should only have to pay five dollars for the six dollar package of
> > batteries, because you didn't like the checkout girls attitude.
>
> Walgreen's doesn't separate the check out chick cost from the item
> you are buying, does it?
Does that matter?
>That's what is happening at a restaurant.
> If you truly inform people of a mandatory charge, then they are
> agreeing to it. But that's not the game. The game is to hide that
> charge so you put up ads saying that things cost 30% less than
> you'll actually pay.
I like how you switch back and forth between "I have the right to
dispute service or product" and "they should just include everything
in the price of the food," because apparently you just heard of this
15% business yesterday.
> > > > > In fact, if the "contract" says they must be paid,
> > > > > this is entirely a civil question when it comes to enforcement.
>
> > > > I don't quite know of a bright line rule that determines which things
> > > > fall to which side of it, but there are some things you may recieve
> > > > without paying for them which are illegal, and some merely tortious,
> > > > and some a combination of the two. Obtaining a hotel room without
> > > > paying for it is illegal, and the laws generally written such that
> > > > you'd need something better than "I wasn't happy with the room" if you
> > > > planned on not paying.
>
> > > The issue here isn't whether or not the court would rule one way or
> > > the other, just that it is a civil issue,
>
> > I don't think service charges are voluntary when they're included in
> > the bill.
>
> It's still a civil issue.
No, it isn't.
>You think that the cops will usually come
> to your store and help you in these circumstances?
Apparently, yeah. Seemingly, the police will go arrest someone and
take them downtown and book 'em, if they don't pay their check in a
restaurant, even if one of the items on a check is a service fee.
> If someone is
> shoplifting, that's not the same thing as putting the cost into
> dispute and demanding a civil trial.
Defrauding an innkeeper is a crime, Bonde. Do you understand that?
The police will arrest you for it.
> > > if properly put into
> > > play, and it is an argument you can make in the civil courts.
>
> > Yes, you could perhaps sue later. The judge would likely attempt to
> > infer from your behavior how non-conforming you really found the
> > product.
>
> So you are agreeing with me?
Not to the extent your argument hinges on the establishment's being
unable to charge you with theft for leaving without paying, since they
certainly can do that.
> > > > >So
> > > > > the analogy is there after all.
>
> > > > It is my strong feeling that, since you will recieve at least some
> > > > level of service, and especially given that waitresses aren't paid
> > > > what we as a society have decided is a legal wage if you don't,
>
> > > I'm not sure where you are going with this,
>
> > I'm trying to put it in terms you understand.
>
> If you use legal terms, it might make sense.
>
> > > "minimum wage" laws
> > > aren't something you support, are they?
>
> > No, of course not.
>
> But you are supporting forcing the buyer to pay more based on an
> unwritten and unspoken
but widely understood and expected
> standard course of conduct in the industry?
Only to the extent suasion and social pressure are "force," which is
not at all. So, no, I don't really support "force." You, on the other
hand, seemingly want everything just put on the bill, and the easiest
way to do that is to raise the price of the food, so that not paying
some of it would be defrauding an innkeeper, which is pretty serious
as minor crimes go
> I'm not saying that course of conduct and standard business
> practice can't stick someone to something. But the idea that
> tipping is such a thing is really absurd.
So absurd its widely expected and understood around the country.
> First of all, the
> restaurant industry is an industry that people in the industry know
> about.
That retarded statement was retarded.
> But anyone can walk into a restaurant. It is silly to assume
> that they all know what the standard business practice and course
> of conduct is for that industry.
That retarded statement is retarded.
> > > And if someone isn't getting
> > > paid enough, wouldn't you usually tell them to just find a job that
> > > pays better?
>
> > Are you missing the point on purpose?
>
> You are telling me to pay money that the menu didn't say I had to
> pay because that's the usual convention.
Yeah, I am, aren't I?
> I said that I do pay that
> but I don't agree that I should have to.
I think it's more an issue of "should," than "have to," or perhaps to
the extent "have to" enters into it, you "have to" or be something I
don't think you'd like to be.
> I think that I should be
> able to decide if and when to tip and how much and that I should be
> able to base this on level of service as I see fit.
Well, you're not. Now stop being so retarded and dishonest and get
with it.
> > > > sitting down and ordering a meal implies a willingness to leave a tip.
>
> > > So buying a burger at the McD implies that?
>
> > Are you really that retarded? Yes you are...
>
> You really think that people understand all these rules?
Do you understand these rules?
> Where did
> the amount of the tip come from?
Where indeed?
> Why does it keep going up?
Why is there air?
>Don't
> say inflation because the restaurant bill is also going up and tip
> is based on that.
I gather the cost of living has outpaced inflation, though,
particular for people in entry-level service jobs.
> How would someone know if they are to tip at a
> restaurant like McD?
They could, you know, watch what other people do when they go there,
ask their friends, read about what you're supposed to do in ettiquette
books, etc. Watch movies.
> Is it because they don't bother to bus the
> tables
I think at McDonald's you're supposed to bus your own table.
>until trash is everywhere? How about restaurants that you
> pay for the food first but they have someone going around filling
> up the water and tea?
You might want to give that person a dollar or two. Also, if you go
to a restaurant that's not McDonald's, and get a to-go order, you
might want to give the person who brings it out to you a dollar or
two.
>
> > > > Not doing so is sort of one of those adhesion contracts you can change
> > > > the terms of retroactively, so I have to say your coming down on the
> > > > side you do is more indicative of incoherency on your part than mine,
> > > > and who is surprised to see Bonde being incoherent?
>
> > > I'd be surprised to be incoherent because I'm not incoherent.
>
> > You're being incoherent right now. You argue against adhesion
> > contracts where one party can change the terms, or the terms are
> > unclear, and yet, that's exactly what welching out on a tip is, isn't
> > it?
>
> An adhesion contract is a predefined written contract that has
> terms that are not bargained for by the weaker party, the consumer
> usually.
Uh huh.
> Tipping or not isn't a written contract.
So you're being incoherent. Well, that's surprising, Bill
Bonde...retarded an incoherent.
Next on AFCA, George Haley pulls the wings off a fly.
> > > > > > > You also don't
> > > > > > > seem to care about consumer rights.
>
> > > > > > You're begging the question there.
>
> > > > > Contract disputes are civil questions.
>
> > > > Okay, right...
>
> > > This reminds me of the Seinfeld where Jerry bet Kramer than he'd
> > > never rebuild his apartment with "levels". Later Kramer said that
> > > he'd decided not to rebuild the apartment with levels so the bet
> > > was off. Seinfeld pointed out, "That's what the bet was about!" You
> > > have been insisting that not paying for a tip was a criminal
> > > question
>
> > In this case it is, yeah. That's why the police came, don't you
> > know.
>
> They showed up because they were called with a claim that someone
> was stealing or something like that.
That someone left a restaurant without paying their bill, or
something like that.
> If the police are called, for
> whatever reason, they should show up. If someone calls them for a
> no good reason, they should be charged for that.
Is calling the police to enforce a "defrauding an innkeeper" law "no
good reason?" I'm sure if you asked most people who did some form of
the ol' dine and dash, they'd say they had some issue with the food
and not just they like to take things without paying for them.
> I'd support
> charging the restaurant for the wasted time.
Yes, you really are that retarded.
> Of course the cop
> arrested the people so I guess that argument should be dropped to
> in this instance.
Yes, you really are that retarded.
>
> > >while I've been insisting that it is a civil one.
>
> > Actually, it's probably not even a civil one, it's just, you know,
> > bad manners.
>
> It's probably less bad manners than you calling me a "retard liar".
But you are a retarded liar, Bill.
> But you claimed it was a criminal act.
In this case it is, yes.
> I said it was a civil one.
It may well be both. If I punch you in the face, I might have
commited a crime, as well as become liable for certain damages.
You do understand "defrauding an innkeeper" is a crime, right? What
are the elements of that crime, and how are they established?
> > > At
> > > common law, I think it should clearly be a civil question. But it
> > > is possible to write statutory laws that override anything in
> > > common law.
>
> > One of which is "defrauding an innkeeper."
>
> I suspect that the context matters.
I bet it doesn't. I mean, ok. If you go to a restaurant, and you
order something, and you find it not to your liking and you refuse to
pay for it, and they insist you pay for it, and you continue to refuse
and they call the police, well, what happens next? Well, you probably
get arrested and to the extent you don't, it probably hinges on the
responding officer believing your story, and even there, I bet he
advises you to pay your bill (you did bring money to cover the bill,
right? That would really go against you arguing you ordered your food
without fraudulent intent) and then sue later. well, let's see.
Here's a story very much like that from the St. Petersburg Times:
Guy refuses to pay bill in restaurant, claims there was a bandage in
his coleslaw, is arrested on the premises, charged with defrauding an
innkeeper. No word as to final disposition, implication not finally
charged, filed lawsuit for 5k for being put out and embarassed.
So I stand by my statement, not paying your bill in a restaurant is a
crime.
Here's another case that supports that. In this example, a man claims
he ordered something less expensive, chicken noodle soup, than what he
was served, chicken and noodles. The manager and waiter insist he
ordered the more expensive meal all along, and consequently he was
arrested and charged for not paying for his meal.
So, at least at the point of settling up, it's not a civil issue, and
generally you can expect to be arrested if you dispute your check.
> It is possible to write checks
> and have it be a criminal offence. Usually, however, the issue is
> civil. If you disagree about the charges for something, that is
> civil.
Perhaps you could look into this and see to what extent ordering food
in a restaurant and not paying for it is a breach of contract issue,
and to what extent its just stealing.
> > > > I would not be surprised if that includes, you
> > > > know, any service charges or donations to the widow's and orphan's
> > > > fund, or whatever.
>
> > > You are aware that it is possible to buy something with a Visa card
> > > and then "dispute" the charge, right?
>
> > I bet you wouldn't have to do too much of that and you've commited
> > fraud, which is, you know, mostly illegal.
>
> I think that if you just did that as a regular thing that you'd
> likely have your card taken away. Also, disputing the charges
> doesn't really mean you are supposed to just keep the items. In
> fact, if you are unwilling to give them back in a condition that
> you got them, that would seem to be a good argument for disallowing
> the dispute. VISA has contracts with its merchants regarding all
> this, so it's a civil question again.
It would not surprise me if there was something you could do there
that would get over into criminal action, but it's not really relevant
to the issue at hand. Not paying the bill in a restaurant is a crime,
and the little bit of research I did indicates the responding officers
aren't terribly interested in whatever argument you have as to why you
shouldn't have to pay.
.
> > Which is incoherent, since elsewhere you argue restaurants should
> > just raise the cost of food and bill you that amount, which would give
> > you even less non-criminal room to put the service at issue.
>
> I think that running out without a word is stealing and it is a
> criminal offence (as well as a civil one). I think putting the
> price into dispute isn't a criminal offence.
Apparently it is.
> I do think that
> restaurants should just pay their employees like normal businesses
> do.
>
> > > > > Because I wouldn't violate such rules
> > > > > in similar situations.
>
> > > > Yeah, I just bet.
>
> > > If the accepted rules are to tip a certain percent, I do that.
>
> > Yeah, I just bet.
>
> What's that supposed to mean?
What does it mean to you?
> > > > > Or do you mean you tip? Because, as I said,
> > > > > I do follow whatever the local conventions are, to the best of my
> > > > > knowlege of what they are.
>
> > > > One of which is, unless there's something you feel worth taking to
> > > > the manager, you should leave a 15% tip.
>
> > > This is like a tax on what the prices are in the shop.
>
> > Okay, sort of. I mean, the effect to you, the consumer isn't very
> > different, except presumably the waitress is more directly
> > incentivized. It's also not all that different from, you know, if they
> > just raised the price of the food and then paid everyone more. I think
> > that's what they do in at least the less metropolitan parts of
> > Australia, although even there, between you and I bet some people
> > leave a couple few dollars on the table after all.
>
> Maybe they do that for good service.
Yes, well, if the custom in the states bothers you, move to
Australia. Here in the states we tip 15% for acceptible service, and
please don't Bonde that you can accept the unacceptable or lose all
arguments forever.
>
> > > Would you
> > > accept this in other industries?
>
> > I don't quite know how to break this to you, but in other industries
> > the price you pay includes, you know, everyone's wages or salaries, so
> > I'm not sure what the difference really is except in restaurants, and
> > maybe a few other places, you can get something without paying for it
> > if you're tacky, badly brought up, small, cowardly, and something of a
> > thief.
>
> So you wouldn't accept weird things like expecting tips in other
> industries?
It would be a little awkward if they just switched overnight. I don't
know that it would be "unacceptable," if that had, over time, become
the understood, accepted, and expected custom. Hey, look...accepted,
unacceptable...see how those words go?
> > > > > > I feel rather strongly anyone who doesn't leave a tip
> > > > > > is something of a thief.
>
> > > > > I don't see that,
>
> > > > Well, you're wrong.
>
> > > > >although as I said, I follow whatever the rules
> > > > > are.
>
> > > > One of which is, unless there's something you feel worth taking to
> > > > the manager, you should leave a 15% tip.
>
> > > > > > If there's a problem with the service, well,
> > > > > > talk to the manager. You know, unless it's something silly and you
> > > > > > know it like they (horrors!) put a slice of lemon in your tea when you
> > > > > > asked for no lemon and when you complained, they just took the lemon
> > > > > > out.
>
> > > > > How about the restaurant scene if "Five Easy Pieces"?
>
> > > > Yeah, how about that?
>
> > > Should he leave a tip?
>
> > For what? He might have to pay for some broken glasses, and perhaps
> > face charges of public misconduct and perhaps even assault, since he
> > sweeps the glasses off the table and onto the waitress, but he's
> > obnoxious enough "I want you to hold it between your knees" that they
> > actually throw him and his party out of the Denny's before any
> > exchange of consideration can take place.
>
> So you think that the chicken between her knees was just an
> invitation to treat?
I would actually feel I should tip extra if I expected someone to do
something weird like that, and I guess I would, since my order of
toast, which I would expect to be something like a dollar, would cost
something like five dollars.
> > > > >Who was wrong
> > > > > there in your opinion?
>
> > > > Jack was, when he said "I want you to hold it between your knees."
> > > > That's. you know, you have to leave now time.
>
> > > Not allowing reasonable substitutions
>
> > If there's some special price, substitution might not be all that
> > reasonable.
>
> I was told that a few days ago, that there were no substitutions on
> the special at the special price. So I accepted that.
I assume the lack of substitutions are how they are able to offer you
that special price, either because its more expensive to do it some
other way, or because allowing substitutions allows customers to jump
the rope in the price discrimination scheme.
> > >in a seat down restaurant
> > > suggests that the "service" aspect of the restaurant is lacking.
>
> > Perhaps, and your remedy there is to say "but please bend a rule for
> > me," and if they so no, take your business elsewhere. They have no
> > obligation to you other than to deliver what they promise.
>
> I'm not claiming that they have a legal obligation to provide the
> service that I request.
I am not even totally sure they have some social obligation, like you
do to leave a 15% tip unless something goes seriously wrong enough
you'd speak to the manager about it. I do not think there's some
widely understood social convention that they make substitutions,
especially when the menu says "no substitutions."
>
> > > They expect a tip for that?
>
> > Yes, and justly so, I'd say. You still will want that brought out to
> > you, right? and your coffee refilled? and the table cleared away? And
> > anything else you come up with, the ketchup, the tabasco sauce, extra
> > napkins, brought out to you?
>
> You aren't giving me the option to get them myself?
Stop being retarded.
> Again, I'd
> include this in the price of the product.
No, you wouldn't, except in an idle, day dreaming wishy way, which is
indistinguishable from "I wouldn't do it." Someone who would do it
would, you know, open a restaurant and operate it on this basis. "At
Retarded BIll's, we charge a little more, but you don't have to tip!
That way you can be sure the service will hardly ever be more than
mediocre! If you're too awkward or retarded to figure out 15%, or so
petty someone better dance the jig and wash your feet and sit up and
beg for three dollars, well, come on down to Retarded Bill's!"
> > > Keep in mind that fast food restaurants
> > > routinely allow what I think are rather complicated and perhaps
> > > unwarranted substitutions
>
> > That's their right, too.
>
> > > No tip is required.
>
> > Nor is service initiated with any expectation thereof.
>
> > > > Up to that point, well,
> > > > If the restaurant has a "no substitutions" breakfast policy, well,
> > > > that's the policy. You can ask they suspend it in your case, but if
> > > > they say "no," well, they are well within their rights, huh?
>
> > > I don't disagree that they are within their rights.
>
> > Finally, you said something that was not retarded! Good for you! I
> > feel like...who's the lady who finally got Helen Keller to figure out
> > the stuff running over her hand was water and to make the sign for it?
>
> Meredith Baxter Birney?
If you say so.
> > > > You are
> > > > free to think that excessively inflexible, or alienating customers,
> > > > and you may be right, but it is their policy to set and enforce as
> > > > they see fit.
>
> > > Like Jack can decide whether or not to leave a tip?
>
> > No, not without, you know, a certain opprobrium.
>
> Kind of the point of having a service host is that they will be
> flexible within reason.
I'm not sure what a service host is, but the point of having a
waitress is the food won't grow legs and walk out to your table by
itself, or at least I don't think it does.
> > > You seem to
> > > have a one sided view on transactions,
>
> > You only think that because you're retarded.
>
> > > instead of treating both
> > > sides as equals.
>
> > Whatever that means.
>
> You always have the consumer in the wrong, because he doesn't pay
> whatever the restaurant decides he should pay.
He can always sue later. It strikes me hardly anyone would ever pay
for food in a restaurant if you could eat all your food, and then say
"I dispute this check!" and walk out without paying.
plausible prose man
wrote:
> plausible prose man (Georgefha...@aol.com) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 6:36 pm, Bob Ward <bobw...@email.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:05:45 -0800 (PST), "()"
> >> <karom...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> George:
>
> >> >> Even knowing all that, I would've still slipped whoever a
> >> >> five, because when the old sailor needs his, well, he needs
> >> >> his now, and the rest of you better gangway.
>
> >> You certainly re the freedom to pay for services not rendered if
> >> you choose to do so,
>
> > They brought it out to you, didn't they? That seemed to be to
> > your
> > liking.
>
> >> but that does not give the establishment the right to
> >> extract a "gratuity" from customers who did not receive the
> >> service they were being charged for.
>
> > Yes it does, actually, especially since, in this case, they
> > likely did receive the service they were being chraged for. I
> > mean, the food didn't just sit in th kitchen all night, huh?
>
> Did you read the article?
I've read several articles.
> http://consumerist.com/2009/11/college-students-arrested-for-refusing
> -to-pay-tip.html
>
> "They had to find their own napkins and cutlery while their waitress
> caught a smoke, had to ask the bar for soda refills, and had to wait
> over an hour for salad and wings."
I don't know that I totally believe that story, just as I am not at
all sure whoever it was found a band-aid in his coleslaw in a not-
dissimilar case from St. Petersburg I found on the internet.
> No, they did not receive the service they were charged for.
I do not agree.
> And the
> restaurant didn't even offer to split the tip with them on the
> grounds that they themselves had provided part of the service being
> charged for.
At least one account I found has the restaurant offering to comp the
whole check for them.
Opus the Penguin
Did it explain why the patrons refused and asked to be taken away by
the police instead?
plausible prose man
wrote:
> plausible prose man (Georgefha...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And the
> >> restaurant didn't even offer to split the tip with them on the
> >> grounds that they themselves had provided part of the service
> >> being charged for.
>
> > At least one account I found has the restaurant offering to comp
> > the whole check for them.
Oh, I'm sorry, the food.
"At this point I became very annoyed because I had already gone up to
the bar myself to have my soda refilled because the waitress never
came back,” Pope said.
After the $73 bill came, the group paid for food, drinks, and tax but
refused to pay the tip. After explaining the bad service to the
bartender in charge, Pope claimed he took their money and called
police. The couple was handcuffed and placed in the back of a police
car.
“I understand that, you know, we didn’t pay the gratuity, but it was a
gratuity, it wasn’t something that was required,” said Wagner.
The owner admitted that the group waited unusually long for their
food, but said the pub was extremely busy that night. He said managers
offered to comp the food, a claim the couple denies ever happened. "
> Did it explain why the patrons refused and asked to be taken away by
> the police instead?
Weren't you a skycap for awhile there? Aren't they usually tipped
employees?
Opus the Penguin
Sure. And if I went on break in the middle of checking someone's bags
and took 20 minutes to do something that should take 60 seconds, I'd
understand if the person didn't want to tip me.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
plausible prose man wrote:
>
> �I understand that, you know, we didn�t pay the gratuity, but it was a
> gratuity, it wasn�t something that was required,� said Wagner.
>
This refutes your "retarded lie" that everyone agrees that tips are
a required thing.
> The owner admitted that the group waited unusually long for their
> food, but said the pub was extremely busy that night. He said managers
> offered to comp the food, a claim the couple denies ever happened. "
>
Comp the food but arrest you for not paying the gratuity? This has
to be the "retarded lie".
plausible prose man
wrote:
> plausible prose man (Georgefha...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Weren't you a skycap for awhile there? Aren't they usually tipped
> > employees?
>
> Sure.
What if you just didn't put on the same class privilege show or were a
little slower for one reason and another?
> And if I went on break in the middle of checking someone's bags
> and took 20 minutes to do something that should take 60 seconds, I'd
> understand if the person didn't want to tip me.
Huh, that's interesting...I'm seeing here that skycaps actually get
what most of us would consider a decent enough living wage, in
addition to their tips, such that some of them are bringing home
lawyer money.
http://www.avjobs.com/careers/detail.asp?RecID=79
So, I suppose there's a better argument that the tip someone gives a
sky cap really is a nice little gift more than anything. You know,
than a waitress. Eh, well, I don't really care about this story that
much anymore, anyway, how about you?
plausible prose man
recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> plausible prose man wrote:
>
> > “I understand that, you know, we didn’t pay the gratuity, but it was a
> > gratuity, it wasn’t something that was required,” said Wagner.
>
> This refutes your "retarded lie" that everyone agrees that tips are
> a required thing.
There's often a Bonde in the woodpile. You know, that guy who makes a
point of being oblivious to social cues?
> > The owner admitted that the group waited unusually long for their
> > food, but said the pub was extremely busy that night. He said managers
> > offered to comp the food, a claim the couple denies ever happened. "
>
> Comp the food but arrest you for not paying the gratuity?
Perhaps that discussion occured earlier. Perhaps not. Who knows? Not
us, that's for sure. I no longer much care, that's also for sure.
> This has
> to be the "retarded lie".
Did you write it? Then it probably is, since as we all know, you're a
retarded liar.
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> plausible prose man (Georgefha...@aol.com) wrote:
>> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Weren't you a skycap for awhile there? Aren't they usually
>> > tipped employees?
>>
>> Sure.
>
> What if you just didn't put on the same class privilege show or
> were a little slower for one reason and another?
>
That would probably affect tips, sure. It's hard to say. Everyone had
their theories about the best ways to ensure a tip.
>> And if I went on break in the middle of checking someone's bags
>> and took 20 minutes to do something that should take 60 seconds,
>> I'd understand if the person didn't want to tip me.
>
> Huh, that's interesting...I'm seeing here that skycaps actually
> get what most of us would consider a decent enough living wage, in
> addition to their tips, such that some of them are bringing home
> lawyer money.
>
> http://www.avjobs.com/careers/detail.asp?RecID=79
>
The $70 to $100k is mostly a pipe dream. But if you work your way up
to the best shifts and airlines, you could get $60k eventually. The
problem is, there aren't a lot of those shifts and the guys that have
them don't tend to quit.
Further, you should understand that the $60k doesn't translate to the
same $60k a business professional makes. There's no health insurance,
no paid vacation or sick days, no retirement fund, and no social
security matching.
That last one isn't as much of an issue since most skycaps tend to
lie on their tax returns. But if you're scrupulous, as I was, that
$60k would become $56k after you'd paid the extra social security.
Then, if you want to take 3 weeks PTO, you end up with $52.7k per
year. Then, if you want to provide health insurance for your family,
I'm not sure how that compares. I don't know how much businesses kick
in for that these days. Let's say you'll be out of pocket about
$1,000 per month over what a business professional would. So in
equivalent terms, you're making $40k a year with no 401k plan.
> So, I suppose there's a better argument that the tip someone gives
> a sky cap really is a nice little gift more than anything.
There were plenty of misinformed people who felt the same way. We got
paid $2.13 per hour. That's a little over $4k a year without the
tips. If you can't afford to use the service, we'd prefer you go
inside.
plausible prose man
wrote:
> plausible prose man (Georgefha...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> plausible prose man (Georgefha...@aol.com) wrote:
> >> > Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Weren't you a skycap for awhile there? Aren't they usually
> >> > tipped employees?
>
> >> Sure.
>
> > What if you just didn't put on the same class privilege show or
> > were a little slower for one reason and another?
>
> That would probably affect tips, sure.
I don't know that I was asking about the "is" there as the "should."
> It's hard to say. Everyone had
> their theories about the best ways to ensure a tip.
I have this idea here that a lot of people who get skycap service are
wanting some evocation of the old days of the Pullman porter, if you
see what I'm getting at.
> >> And if I went on break in the middle of checking someone's bags
> >> and took 20 minutes to do something that should take 60 seconds,
> >> I'd understand if the person didn't want to tip me.
>
> > Huh, that's interesting...I'm seeing here that skycaps actually
> > get what most of us would consider a decent enough living wage, in
> > addition to their tips, such that some of them are bringing home
> > lawyer money.
>
> >http://www.avjobs.com/careers/detail.asp?RecID=79
>
> The $70 to $100k is mostly a pipe dream.
Boy, I would think so...I mean, if you could make the kind of money
in a more or less entry level job, tax free, well, who would ever work
anywhere else?
> But if you work your way up
> to the best shifts and airlines, you could get $60k eventually.The
> problem is, there aren't a lot of those shifts and the guys that have
> them don't tend to quit.
Man...for 80k, tax free, I'd act like that zippidy-doo-dah guy.
Touching my cap, dancing a jig, singing a happy little song with a
"yes, suh! right away, suh! I gives you mah personal gar-un-tee I gets
yo' baggage to the plane, suh! Don't you worry 'bout a thing, suh!"
> Further, you should understand that the $60k doesn't translate to the
> same $60k a business professional makes.
Hell, any more I'm not sure 60k translates to 60k for most
professionals any more, once they buy all their insurance and pay all
their taxes and most of them are paying loans back until they're about
your age.
> There's no health insurance,
I'd be unsurprised to learn most employees, even professionals, pay
some portion of their health insurance out of pocket, although it
might be pre-tax. you know, not to raise a service industry flunky up
to their level in an unfair way, or drag them down to the lacky's
similarly, just sayin', I guess, as much as anything.
> no paid vacation or sick days, no retirement fund, and no social
> security matching.
>
> That last one isn't as much of an issue since most skycaps tend to
> lie on their tax returns. But if you're scrupulous, as I was, that
> $60k would become $56k after you'd paid the extra social security.
> Then, if you want to take 3 weeks PTO, you end up with $52.7k per
> year. Then, if you want to provide health insurance for your family,
> I'm not sure how that compares. I don't know how much businesses kick
> in for that these days. Let's say you'll be out of pocket about
> $1,000 per month over what a business professional would. So in
> equivalent terms, you're making $40k a year with no 401k plan.
>
> > So, I suppose there's a better argument that the tip someone gives
> > a sky cap really is a nice little gift more than anything.
>
> There were plenty of misinformed people who felt the same way.
I also saw someplace that asserted skycaps at some airport, maybe
Logan in Boston, at least at the AA terminal, got a raise from 12 to
15 dollars per, which is, uh...if I was bringing home fifty dollars a
day tax free on top of that, well, I'd wonder how the poor people was
doin'.
> We got
> paid $2.13 per hour. That's a little over $4k a year without the
> tips.
Wow.
> If you can't afford to use the service,
What if, you know, not so much you can't afford it, but you're stingy
and easily slighted and immune to the hairy eyeball?
> we'd prefer you go
> inside.
So then, you know, help me out here...if it wasn't some nice little
gift, do you feel some basic tip was then expected for minimally
acceptable service, or...?
Jim Prescott
Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, I suppose there's a better argument that the tip someone gives
>> a sky cap really is a nice little gift more than anything.
>There were plenty of misinformed people who felt the same way. We got
>paid $2.13 per hour. That's a little over $4k a year without the
>tips.
Without the tips you should be making minimum wage; not $2.13/hr. At
the current $7.25/hr no fulltime (2000hrs/yr) job pays less than ~$14k.
http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm
What is the minimum wage for workers who receive tips?
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires payment of at
least the federal minimum wage to covered, nonexempt
employees. An employer of a tipped employee is only required
to pay $2.13 an hour in direct wages if that amount plus the
tips received equals at least the federal minimum wage, the
employee retains all tips and the employee customarily and
regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. If an
employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at
least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly
wage, the employer must make up the difference.
--
Jim Prescott Edmund A. Hajim School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
j...@seas.rochester.edu University of Rochester, NY
HVS
What a broken system. Tips should never, ever, enter into the
equation of a statutory minimum wage.
Full stop; end of argument.
(I think I'm agreeing with Bonde here; so be it.)
--
Cheers,
Harvey
plausible prose man
> In article <Xns9CCE92EBF2578opusthepenguinnet...@192.168.1.101>,
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepenguin+use...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> So, I suppose there's a better argument that the tip someone gives
> >> a sky cap really is a nice little gift more than anything.
> >There were plenty of misinformed people who felt the same way. We got
> >paid $2.13 per hour. That's a little over $4k a year without the
> >tips.
>
> Without the tips you should be making minimum wage; not $2.13/hr. At
> the current $7.25/hr no fulltime (2000hrs/yr) job pays less than ~$14k.
>
> http://www.dol.gov/elaws/faq/esa/flsa/002.htm
>
> What is the minimum wage for workers who receive tips?
>
> The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires payment of at
> least the federal minimum wage to covered, nonexempt
> employees. An employer of a tipped employee is only required
> to pay $2.13 an hour in direct wages if that amount plus the
> tips received equals at least the federal minimum wage, the
> employee retains all tips and the employee customarily and
> regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. If an
> employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at
> least $2.13 an hour do not equal the federal minimum hourly
> wage, the employer must make up the difference.
I gather this is very difficult to actually make happen in real life.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Jim Prescott wrote:
>
> In article <Xns9CCE92EBF2578op...@192.168.1.101>,
> Opus the Penguin <opusthepen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> So, I suppose there's a better argument that the tip someone gives
> >> a sky cap really is a nice little gift more than anything.
> >There were plenty of misinformed people who felt the same way. We got
> >paid $2.13 per hour. That's a little over $4k a year without the
> >tips.
>
> Without the tips you should be making minimum wage; not $2.13/hr. At
> the current $7.25/hr no fulltime (2000hrs/yr) job pays less than ~$14k.
>
I've cited that seven states don't discount the min wage for people
who get tips. Their wages apparently average $20 per hour. Is that
enough?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
If there is a minimum wage, I don't support having a minimum wage.
Opus the Penguin
> So then, you know, help me out here...if it wasn't some nice little
> gift, do you feel some basic tip was then expected for minimally
> acceptable service, or...?
Depends what you mean by "minimally" acceptable. I'd say a tip was
expected for acceptable service. And I'd define acceptable service as
getting your information promptly, tagging your bags correctly, and
handling them without throwing them around.
If I'm rude or incompetent or ridiculously slow, no I don't think it's
reasonable for me to expect a tip.
K_S_ONeill
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:58:56 -0500, Cindbear wrote:
> >I understand why places tack on the tip for large groups, but the
> >mangement in this place has really shot themselves in the foot.
>
> >http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/20091119_College_students_...
> >College students arrested for not paying tip
>
> >By Peter Mucha
>
> >Inquirer Staff Writer
>
> >It was an evening out that college students Leslie Pope and John
> >Wagner will long remember.
>
> >Not only did they get what they called lousy service, they got
> >handcuffed and arrested.
>
> >All over a $16.35 tip.
>
> >They were with a half-dozen friends at the Lehigh Pub in Bethlehem
> >last month, so the establishment tacked what it called a mandatory 18
> >percent gratuity onto the bill of about $73, according to reports.
>
> >Pope and Wagner refused to pay.
>
> >"You can't give us terrible, terrible service and expect a tip," said
> >Pope, a 22-year-old Moravian College senior who's a Pottsville native,
> >according to the Lehigh Valley Express-Times.
>
> >They had to find their own napkins and cutlery while their waitress
> >caught a smoke, had to ask the bar for soda refills, and had to wait
>
> >The pub, which was very busy that night, took the $73, but then called
> >the cops, who treated the matter as a theft.
>
> >The menu clearly states, "18 percent gratuity added to check of
> >parties of 6 of more," and a similar message is printed on receipts, a
> >pub employee said this morning.
>
> >A court date is scheduled for next month.
>
> >What would they do if it happened again? a reporter asked.
>
> >"Honestly, probably gonna pay the tip anyway," said Pope, prompting
> >Wagner, 24, a Lehigh University grad student, to laugh.
>
> This is localish to me. I can't wait for an update.
I see that there's a long thread after this, but I'm cooking gravy and
can't be arsed to read it all. I'll just add this, and take a chance
on agreeing with George or Bonde: I worked at an Italian restaurant
for a couple of years when I first got out of the army and I was
starting in college. I think I've recounted here before the story of
the big tree landing where I usually parked my bike, and the girl of
the time calling to see if I'd driven it to work or if it was under
the tree, and also how they called at 3 one night to tell me not to
bother coming in, and then at 5, an hour before they opened for
dinner, the place burned down.
Anyway, midway through my tenure there they instituted a "Tables of 8
or more get 15% gratuity added to tab". I hated that. All of us
hated it except the owner and the sons who sometimes sat in as
waiters. In the old days a table of 8 or 10 would get a waiter and
one or two helpers, who would be tipped out to by the waiter. After
the change there was no reason to do that, one of the sons would grab
big tables and handle everything themselves to get the whole (large)
tip. Service by one person to a table of ten or twelve is awful,
really awful, and we usually had very good service. I think it was
bad for repeat business, but I guess that's not a concern if you're
going to have a terrible accident and the place burn down in eight
months.
So anyway, I think it's a crap rule. But I like tipping. I liked it
as a waiter, and I like it as a customer. Some of my foreign friends
think it's a weird USan thing. I dunno. If you're going to have a
tipping system, I think auto-tipping on large tables is a bad idea.
--
Kevin
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
By analogy to his views regarding tips at restaurants or charge
backs at the cinema show, it would mean that the customer in your
cab didn't ask to be thrown out on the expressway half way to his
destination.
plausible prose man
>
> > > So then, you know, help me out here...if it wasn't some nice little
> > > gift, do you feel some basic tip was then expected for minimally
> > > acceptable service, or...?
>
> > Depends what you mean by "minimally" acceptable. I'd say a tip was
> > expected for acceptable service. And I'd define acceptable service as
> > getting your information promptly, tagging your bags correctly, and
> > handling them without throwing them around.
>
> > If I'm rude or incompetent or ridiculously slow, no I don't think it's
> > reasonable for me to expect a tip.
>
> By analogy to his views regarding tips at restaurants or charge
> backs at the cinema show, it would mean that the customer in your
> cab didn't ask to be thrown out on the expressway half way to his
> destination.
I think something like a ride in a car is a little different, or say,
a banquet or wedding reception. You know, something where the person
providing the service has you at a certain advantage. If you decide
the movie's so unwatchable you stop watching it, well, you're better
off. If you decide the car ride's so unacceptable you no longer accept
it, well, you might be stuck by the side of the road in an unfamiliar
and even unsafe enviroment, and thus worse off.
plausible prose man
wrote:
> plausible prose man (Georgefha...@aol.com) wrote:
>
> > So then, you know, help me out here...if it wasn't some nice little
> > gift, do you feel some basic tip was then expected for minimally
> > acceptable service, or...?
>
> Depends what you mean by "minimally" acceptable. I'd say a tip was
> expected for acceptable service. And I'd define acceptable service as
> getting your information promptly, tagging your bags correctly, and
> handling them without throwing them around.
>
> If I'm rude
What if you're just not friendly? Or, what someone else might think
of as professional?
> or incompetent or ridiculously slow,
What I would call incompetent or slow, or what Bob Ward would call
incompetent or slow? Bob apparently thinks a waitress who brings you a
hamburger with onions when you'd asked for no onions is incompetent,
how do you feel about that? The other night, I went to a restaurant to
watch Florida play football, and I ordered a piece of prime rib. I
ordered medium rare, but it came out medium. I think because it was
the end of the night and that's about all you can really get by then.
Well, you know what, though? I was pretty hungry, and even a little
more done than I like it in a perfect world, prime rib's pretty good,
right? So I ate every last bite, let me tell you what.
Now, was the waitress incompetent? Should I have left no tip? Should
I have called the manager over and said "I ordered the prime rib
medium rare and what I got was medium, and it was so unacceptible to
me I ate every last bite! I refuse to pay my bill!"
Would you do that? Would you think someone who did that was, you
know, kind of an asshole?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
So you now agree that the sole requirement for "minimally
acceptable" and "satisfactory" isn't that you used the service to
its ordinary conclusion? That it took diverting the discussion to
taxis notwithstanding, I mean.
plausible prose man
I think that's dispositive in the contexts we were actually
discussing.
> That it took diverting the discussion to
> taxis notwithstanding, I mean.
Too bad you didn't come up with that before you lost the earlier
argument, not that it would've helped you much. In any case, the firm
at this point sees no reason to re-open the matter so that you can
Bonde around some more.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
The actual context wasn't someone who ate an entire meal and then
without any sensible reason simply refused to pay for the meal, or
just ran off. The context is someone who ate the meal, paid for it,
and then refused to pay an extra charge that is ostensibly for the
service they were not really provided. They didn't walk off, they
dutifully disputed the bill. This makes it a civil issue. It isn't
clear when the person who is refusing to pay this charge should
refuse to pay this charge, in your view.
> > That it took diverting the discussion to
> > taxis notwithstanding, I mean.
>
> Too bad you didn't come up with that before you lost the earlier
> argument,
>
I really think that I won the argument at each point:
http://www.mcall.com/news/breaking/all-tip-charges-112309-cn,0,3955261.story
#begin quote
Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli said today.
...
Morganelli said Bethlehem Commissioner Randy Miller told him Friday
that the department planned to drop the charges, a move Morganelli
said he agrees with.
"It would not be the kind of case that should be processed
criminally," Morganelli said. "It was one of those matters that
should be processed civilly."
#end quote
This is EXACTLY what I've been saying all along.
> not that it would've helped you much. In any case, the firm
> at this point sees no reason to re-open the matter so that you can
> Bonde around some more.
>
The "firm"? The pub, you mean?:
#cont quote supra
Lehigh Pub manager William Sheehan said Monday it was "news to him"
that the charges were being withdrawn.
#end quote
This restaurant's owners are being completely foolish, they provide
terrible service, get someone arrested for not paying a forced tip,
and then whine about it in the media. They are lucky they don't
have a boycott on their hands, students from all over marching
around with signs saying "Free the Bethlehem Seven". Actually, I
wonder if a boycott of sorts won't just occur. Will people want to
go there knowing they could be treated so badly?
plausible prose man
> > I think that's dispositive in the contexts we were actually
> > discussing.
>
> The actual context wasn't someone who ate an entire meal and then
> without any sensible reason simply refused to pay for the meal, or
> just ran off.
I'm sorry, the discussion is now closed.
>
> > > That it took diverting the discussion to
> > > taxis notwithstanding, I mean.
>
> > Too bad you didn't come up with that before you lost the earlier
> > argument,
>
> I really think that I won the argument at each point:
No, you are clearly mistaken about that, but as I said, the
discussion has been concluded. That you want to reargue your points,
well, that doesn't argue for your getting them right in the first
place, huh?
Lesmond
>> This is localish to me. ÿI can't wait for an update.
Long story short: The charges were dropped.
But I think you just hit on something. When restaurants have rules like
that, it's almost like saying, "Look...the service is going to suck, so you
won't want to tip. We'll make you do it, though."
--
If there's a nuclear winter, at least it'll snow.