Uninvited guetsts - with a twist
Userb3
arrangements to grill around our friend's pool on a Saturday evening. It
wasn't a dinner party per see (we get together several times a week to
cook and/or swim), but we'd brought a relatively rare treat and were
looking forward to an abundance of food for four.
Everyting was going swimmingly (pardon the pun) until another couple
showed up unannounced a few minutes before we were ready to start taking
food off the grill. Without consulting us as to whether there was enough
food for 6 or if we minded including another couple in our evening, our
friends' wife invited them to join us and dashed inside to set two more
places at the table.
We were a bit put off (we'd planned on eating pretty lavishly that night,
and taking leftovers to an infirm aunt the next day, and adding two more
diners meant dinner would feed 6 conservative portions), but felt like we
couldn't say anything because we weren't in our own home.
The evening turned out OK, but we had to forego taking Aunt Rachel her
grilled salmon and veggies because there wasn't anything left over. And
while we enjoy the third couple, we'd looked forward to an evening with
our closer friends.
It seems clear to me that in a perfect world, our friend would have
pulled us aside before inviting the third couple to join us. Since they
didn't, is there any way we could have headed off the situation without
causing a scene or seeming to be unfriendly?
--
Let the Religious Right Form Their Own Party!
http://www.gopchoice.org/
http://www.mypartytoo.com/
http://www.realrepublicanmajority.org/
Ericka Kammerer
> It seems clear to me that in a perfect world, our friend would have
> pulled us aside before inviting the third couple to join us. Since they
> didn't, is there any way we could have headed off the situation without
> causing a scene or seeming to be unfriendly?
Nothing is coming to mind for me. I can think of
some things you could have done in the way of prevention
(maybe chatting up your plans to take a meal to Aunt
Rachel, etc.), but you wouldn't have had any reason to
suspect that was necessary. As the thing played out, I'm
at a loss to think of how you could have jumped in once
they blurted out an invitation. You might have been
able to raise the question of whether or not there was
enough food to go around, but I suspect that wouldn't
have helped. They obviously had to have given *some*
thought to that before inviting the other couple to join
you, so I'm guessing if you had raised the question, they'd
just have said that of course there was enough food.
I suppose it's just one of those things you
chalk up as a learning experience.
Best wishes,
Ericka
JoAnne Schmitz
wrote:
>Userb3 wrote:
>
>> It seems clear to me that in a perfect world, our friend would have
>> pulled us aside before inviting the third couple to join us. Since they
>> didn't, is there any way we could have headed off the situation without
>> causing a scene or seeming to be unfriendly?
>
> Nothing is coming to mind for me. I can think of
>some things you could have done in the way of prevention
>(maybe chatting up your plans to take a meal to Aunt
>Rachel, etc.), but you wouldn't have had any reason to
>suspect that was necessary. As the thing played out, I'm
>at a loss to think of how you could have jumped in once
>they blurted out an invitation.
I think it might be somewhat incumbent upon the surprise guests to have
demurred at least once before accepting. It would depend on local custom,
but most people I know would say, 'no really, you go on, we were just
passing through and will call again soon.' Only when the invitation is
repeated by everyone enthusiastically is it taken seriously.
>You might have been
>able to raise the question of whether or not there was
>enough food to go around, but I suspect that wouldn't
>have helped. They obviously had to have given *some*
>thought to that before inviting the other couple to join
>you, so I'm guessing if you had raised the question, they'd
>just have said that of course there was enough food.
But then they should have pulled out some food of their own to make up the
difference.
I understand the motivation -- the hosts didn't want to turn anyone away
from a seeming overabundance of food. It seems like the surprise guests
arrived at an awkward moment.
The choice between seemingly snubbing them and possibly annoying you was
probably not easy to negotiate, and I think I would err on the side of
forgiveness here.
> I suppose it's just one of those things you
>chalk up as a learning experience.
I would expect a request to set aside a packet for Aunt Rachel to be
honored. But it probably didn't even occur to Userb3 until it was too
late.
-JoAnne
--
Ericka Kammerer
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:14:50 -0400, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Userb3 wrote:
>>
>>> It seems clear to me that in a perfect world, our friend would have
>>> pulled us aside before inviting the third couple to join us. Since they
>>> didn't, is there any way we could have headed off the situation without
>>> causing a scene or seeming to be unfriendly?
>> Nothing is coming to mind for me. I can think of
>> some things you could have done in the way of prevention
>> (maybe chatting up your plans to take a meal to Aunt
>> Rachel, etc.), but you wouldn't have had any reason to
>> suspect that was necessary. As the thing played out, I'm
>> at a loss to think of how you could have jumped in once
>> they blurted out an invitation.
>
> I think it might be somewhat incumbent upon the surprise guests to have
> demurred at least once before accepting.
I would agree.
>> You might have been
>> able to raise the question of whether or not there was
>> enough food to go around, but I suspect that wouldn't
>> have helped. They obviously had to have given *some*
>> thought to that before inviting the other couple to join
>> you, so I'm guessing if you had raised the question, they'd
>> just have said that of course there was enough food.
>
> But then they should have pulled out some food of their own to make up the
> difference.
Not necessarily, unless they understood the hint.
I suspect they legitimately felt there was enough food for
all. Perhaps their expectations were different about what
constitutes "enough food." I know that I always err on the
side of way too much when feeding guests, but lots of other
people will plan dinner parties with rather conservative
portions (by my estimation). They probably have a much
more responsible approach diet-wise, but I've got too much
of my grandmother in me and always feel like there needs
to be an abundance when guests are involved. Clearly,
neither of those approaches is *wrong*, but they are
certainly different.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Userb3
news:WoydndJNKcukrTLb...@comcast.com:
> JoAnne Schmitz wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 20:14:50 -0400, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>> I think it might be somewhat incumbent upon the surprise guests to
>> have demurred at least once before accepting.
Yes, I should have mentioned that option in my "in a perfect world"
scenario. In fact, I have declined a dinner invitation under similar
circumstances.
> Not necessarily, unless they understood the hint.
> I suspect they legitimately felt there was enough food for
> all.
I suspect you're corect, but it seems to me that they should have
conferred with us on that question since we were providing the food.
At any rate, its all water under the bridge now.
Ericka Kammerer
>> Not necessarily, unless they understood the hint.
>> I suspect they legitimately felt there was enough food for
>> all.
>
> I suspect you're corect, but it seems to me that they should have
> conferred with us on that question since we were providing the food.
Oh, they certainly should have. It's just that if
they don't think to do that, it seems like your options are
limited, unless you're willing to create a rather uncomfortable
situation.
> At any rate, its all water under the bridge now.
True.
Best wishes,
Ericka
honeybunch
If it were just the salmon or even if it were the entire meal I would
have had no qualms telling old buddy Joe that hey, I was planning to
bring a bit of this meal to auntie agatha tomorrow and then popping
out the old tupperware and filling it to the brim before the meal was
served. The what the hey? Its diet time for freddy and freeloader
and unfortuanately for you too.
Miss Elaine Eos
Userb3 <use...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's a sticky one.
It seems to me that what happened was this:
* You: "we'd like to share our bounty with you, our close friends.
We'll feast!" Very nice.
* Friends: "That's lovely, we'll cook by the pool & swim." Gracious
give & take.
* 3rd couple: "Hey, we just dropped by -- are you guys cooking or
swimming or anything fun?" Varies, depending on everyone's rapport.
Let's assume the best, for now.
* F: "How lovely! We've got a wonderful feast planned, won't you please
join us?" Really, about the only gracious answer. None other come to
mind for me, at least.
* Y: "Hey, we didn't mention this, but we wanted to share extravagance
with you, then take leftovers to Aunt Rachel." Perfectly
understandable, but a tad out of place, given that you didn't mention
it, earlier, and leaves "F" in a bit of a bind, when presented after the
fact.
So, from your description, it seems to me that your friends were put in
an awkward position and made the best possible decision, and you feel
understandably resentful because, well, "...NOBODY expects the Spanish
Inquisition...!"
Sometimes, stuff happens. I'd say roll with it. If you're going to
resent someone, point it at couple #3 for spoiling your unspoken plans.
but do recognize that it's not reasonable to expect anyone to go along
with plans unspoken when things go astray, as they sometimes do!
> is there any way we could have headed off the situation without
> causing a scene or seeming to be unfriendly?
About the best you could've done -- and this is a pretty long stretch, I
admit, but maybe you'll think of it next time, now that you have this
experience -- would be to let your original friends know: "hey, we've
got this wonderful bounty that we'd love to share with you. It's a
feast for the four of us, plus there'll be a little left over to take to
Aunt Rachel, who really enjoys this sort of thing. I hope you're
available to join us...!"
Even better would've been to take-out Aunt Rachel's tupperware-full
before bringing bounty to friends' house in the first place. Then
they'd be full aware how much there was to divide up, and could've
gracefully offered to boils some cabbage to stretch things out for 6, or
whatever.
Expecting them to say "sorry, there's only cornucopia enough for 4",
while within realm of possibility, is a bit much to actually hold
resentment over, if it doesn't come.
--
Please take off your pants or I won't read your e-mail.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.
Ericka Kammerer
> I'm starting to suspect something is under the bridge.
One does begin to wonder...
Best wishes,
Ericka
Gene Wirchenko
>On Aug 6, 6:35 pm, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> miurajose wrote:
>> > You have so many abilities. You can disagree, you can wonder, and you
>> > can even join the ranks of those who resort to nasty insinuations.
>> > But I'm afraid that this last skill is unbecoming of a Miss Manners
>> > fan.
>>
>> So are snide comments.
>Yes, snide comments are also unbecoming of Miss Manners fans.
So why make them?
You have come on like gangbusters and yet have contributed little
to the newsgroup but noise.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation:
I have preferences.
You have biases.
He/She has prejudices.
Serene
>
> But I'm afraid that I've received
> unwarranted criticism in public and thus I must respond in public.
Do you think Miss Manners would agree with you on that?
Serene
--
Spin the auto-sig generator, and she says:
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer
god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the
other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
[Stephen F Roberts]
Userb3
9A8C38.205...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net:
> Expecting them to say "sorry, there's only cornucopia enough for 4",
> while within realm of possibility, is a bit much to actually hold
> resentment over, if it doesn't come.
Interestingly, we've been in a very similar situation with the same couple
(grilling dinner for four by the pool, unannounced visitors show up just as
dinner is coming off the grill) and the male of the couple handled it by
simply saying "hey, we were just sitting down to dinner with the userb3s,
what are y'all doing later/tomorrow?"
Ericka Kammerer
> Miss Elaine Eos <Mi...@your-pants.PlayNaked.com> wrote in news:Misc-
> 9A8C38.205...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net:
>
>> Expecting them to say "sorry, there's only cornucopia enough for 4",
>> while within realm of possibility, is a bit much to actually hold
>> resentment over, if it doesn't come.
>
> Interestingly, we've been in a very similar situation with the same couple
> (grilling dinner for four by the pool, unannounced visitors show up just as
> dinner is coming off the grill) and the male of the couple handled it by
> simply saying "hey, we were just sitting down to dinner with the userb3s,
> what are y'all doing later/tomorrow?"
That's not too surprising to me. Some people just sort
of freeze in an awkward situation like that and aren't sure what
to say, even if they'd rather put the unexpected visitors off.
"People pleasers" have a very hard time saying "no," however
warranted it might be.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Gene Wirchenko
>On Aug 6, 7:17 pm, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@ocis.net> wrote:
>> miurajose <miuraj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Aug 6, 6:35 pm, Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> miurajose wrote:
>> >> > You have so many abilities. You can disagree, you can wonder, and you
>> >> > can even join the ranks of those who resort to nasty insinuations.
>> >> > But I'm afraid that this last skill is unbecoming of a Miss Manners
>> >> > fan.
>>
>> >> So are snide comments.
>> >Yes, snide comments are also unbecoming of Miss Manners fans.
>>
>> So why make them?
>>
>> You have come on like gangbusters and yet have contributed little
>> to the newsgroup but noise.
>Dear Mr. Wirchenko,
>
>How funny that you should say "like gangbusters". Ericka and JoAnne
>both ganged up on me there, and now you too.
I will spare you any further. <PLONK!>
[snip]
Miss Elaine Eos
Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Besides the issue of whether or not there was enough
> food, I think there's still an issue of whether or not one
> should unilaterally add folks to a social event without
> making sure it's okay with the current participants.
While I understand your "you never know..." examples, I'm just not sure
how one could pull this off without a strong "excuse me a moment while
we vote on whether or not I should invite you to join us."
I mean, the situation pretty-much demands an immediate reaction. If the
host can pull off a "we're actually entertaining, now, but we'd love to
see you later in the week, if you're free. I'll call you in the
morning", that's great. I only meant to suggest that a lot of people --
not just people-pleasers, but also those not experienced with the
situation -- might have trouble with it.
Nicely, though, we all now have a decent model for it :)
Userb3
> In article <TP2dnVVuUoozeSrb...@comcast.com>,
> Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Besides the issue of whether or not there was enough
>> food, I think there's still an issue of whether or not one
>> should unilaterally add folks to a social event without
>> making sure it's okay with the current participants.
>
> While I understand your "you never know..." examples, I'm just not sure
> how one could pull this off without a strong "excuse me a moment while
> we vote on whether or not I should invite you to join us."
One of the nice things about socializing with more than three people is
that it is entirely possible for two people to have a quiet aside not
shared with the group. This is also, for example, the mechanism by which
couples can share a word about when its time to leave, one can tell one's
friend about an embarrasing piece of spinach in her teeth, comment that
Uncle Earl is telling his Elvis story for the 17th time, etc.
> I mean, the situation pretty-much demands an immediate reaction.
Not necessarily. Depending on the particular dish being prepared and the
stage of cooking, it should be possible to visit with the unannounced
guests for a short while before dinner.
As another poster pointed out, though, it would have perhaps been
primarily incumbent on the unannounced visitors to pick up on the
situation and excuse themselves before it became an issue.
"Oh, I see you're preparing dinner. We'll visit another time."
Userb3
news:f99ou...@drn.newsguy.com:
> Secondly, am I the only one to whom a plan to serve leftovers *after
> guests* to another relative strikes as a little dicey to begin with?
At the risk of invoking "local custom", I'm a part time caterer, and the
husband of the couple with the pool is a former chef and restaurant
manager. We're both pretty familiar with portion size, and routinely cook
in each others' kitchens. Its also common among grill chefs to prepare
extra food for later while you have the grill going. So at least in this
case, it was pretty safe to assume that there was plenty for the four of
us to enjoy generous portions and still have leftovers.
> Just to be clear, the biggest problem in this scenario, I agree, is
> the actions of the couple who arrived unplanned. And that they should
> have been immediately dispatched in the direction they came with
> apologies.
I'm glad we agree.
Ericka Kammerer
> In article <TP2dnVVuUoozeSrb...@comcast.com>,
> Ericka Kammerer <e...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Besides the issue of whether or not there was enough
>> food, I think there's still an issue of whether or not one
>> should unilaterally add folks to a social event without
>> making sure it's okay with the current participants.
>
> While I understand your "you never know..." examples, I'm just not sure
> how one could pull this off without a strong "excuse me a moment while
> we vote on whether or not I should invite you to join us."
Oh, I think there's usually a way--even if it's just
a meaningful look across the room followed by a slight nod
or shake. You can say, "one moment, just let me check if
we've got enough to stretch dinner" and then have a quick
conversation while doing that. Or, there's nothing
preventing one from saying, as the husband had on other
occasions, "how about later/tomorrow?" You can always
err on the side of caution.
> I mean, the situation pretty-much demands an immediate reaction. If the
> host can pull off a "we're actually entertaining, now, but we'd love to
> see you later in the week, if you're free. I'll call you in the
> morning", that's great. I only meant to suggest that a lot of people --
> not just people-pleasers, but also those not experienced with the
> situation -- might have trouble with it.
Oh, I definitely agree that it's a challenging situation
for the person so confronted, which is why I said I understood
and had some sympathy for it. My point was just that sometimes
you have to say no in order to fulfill your responsibilities
to your current companions--and this is true even if you've got
enough food to go around. I think if you can't find a way to
verify that it's ok with your other companions that new folks
are welcome, you should err on the side of caution.
Best wishes,
Ericka
ZedBanty
>
>ZedBanty <ZedBant...@newsguy.com> wrote in
>news:f99ou...@drn.newsguy.com:
>
>> Secondly, am I the only one to whom a plan to serve leftovers *after
>> guests* to another relative strikes as a little dicey to begin with?
>
>At the risk of invoking "local custom", I'm a part time caterer, and the
>husband of the couple with the pool is a former chef and restaurant
>manager. We're both pretty familiar with portion size, and routinely cook
>in each others' kitchens. Its also common among grill chefs to prepare
>extra food for later while you have the grill going. So at least in this
>case, it was pretty safe to assume that there was plenty for the four of
>us to enjoy generous portions and still have leftovers.
Ah - and I also missed that you had brought over fresh salmon to be grilled at
your friends' house. Because I was also wondering why you didn't simply set
aside your Aunt's portion before going over, so this explains that as well.
*In general* for we mere culinary mortals ;-) it *would* be a dicey plan, I
think.
I had gotten the impression that, being as we're pressured (or at the least, *I*
have often felt the pressure) to welcome everybody, always be gregarious, the
more the merrier, you felt you needed to invoke a deprived Aunt as just the
disruption of not having the gathering you both had planned would be enough
grievance. I take it that's not the case. Because I would have felt aggrieved
by the last-minute tacked-on couple whatever the food amounts present.
Cheers,
ZedBanty
JoAnne Schmitz
>No. However, it would have been polite for your friend's wife to look
>through the peep hole and, seeing that it wasn't a group of firemen,
>not open the door. But how could she politely ask you two if you
>would mind if she invited the unexpected guests in? Wouldn't that
>automatically be rude to you by implying that your presence was not
>enough?
>
>Or maybe that would have given you two the chance to ask your friend's
>wife if she minded having your Aunt Rachel over (albeit in spirit).
>Afterall, how else were you going to let her know that she couldn't
>have seconds of the salmon and vegetables because you were saving them
>for your own unexpected guest?
Why is this all about the wives?
I'm starting to suspect something is under the bridge.
-JoAnne
--
Ericka Kammerer
> You have so many abilities. You can disagree, you can wonder, and you
> can even join the ranks of those who resort to nasty insinuations.
> But I'm afraid that this last skill is unbecoming of a Miss Manners
> fan.
So are snide comments.
Best wishes,
Ericka
Userb3
news:1186349045.2...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
> But how could she politely ask you two if you
> would mind if she invited the unexpected guests in?
(aside) "User, do you mind if we invite Rachel and Schlomo to join us? Do
you think there's enough?" Or words to that effect.
> Wouldn't that
> automatically be rude to you by implying that your presence was not
> enough?
Why would any reasonable person think such a thing?
> Or maybe that would have given you two the chance to ask your friend's
> wife if she minded having your Aunt Rachel over (albeit in spirit).
We were providing the food, and were providing very ample portions for 4
plus leftovers. Why would any reasoable person mind such a thing?
> Afterall, how else were you going to let her know that she couldn't
> have seconds of the salmon and vegetables because you were saving them
> for your own unexpected guest?
I don't believe your analogy works. There was plenty for her to have
seconds and for Aunt Rachel to enjoy a plate the next day. There was not,
however, plenty for 6 to eat as much as they want and provide for Aunt
Rachel.
Ericka Kammerer
> miurajose <miur...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1186349045.2...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>> But how could she politely ask you two if you
>> would mind if she invited the unexpected guests in?
>
> (aside) "User, do you mind if we invite Rachel and Schlomo to join us? Do
> you think there's enough?" Or words to that effect.
Besides the issue of whether or not there was enough
food, I think there's still an issue of whether or not one
should unilaterally add folks to a social event without
making sure it's okay with the current participants. You
never know when someone has proposed a get together because
they have something important they want to share with you
(or whatever else they might have planned). It seems only
common courtesy to me to check first. I understand why
some people freeze when confronted by people on their
doorstep, and I don't think there's much you can do if
the unexpected guests are invited in without your
agreement, but I do think that if you've got a social
engagement you should expect to devote your time and
attention to the folks originally on your calendar.
Best wishes,
Ericka
ZedBanty
>
>miurajose <miur...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:1186349045.2...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
>> But how could she politely ask you two if you
>> would mind if she invited the unexpected guests in?
>
>(aside) "User, do you mind if we invite Rachel and Schlomo to join us? Do
>you think there's enough?" Or words to that effect.
>
>> Wouldn't that
>> automatically be rude to you by implying that your presence was not
>> enough?
>
>Why would any reasonable person think such a thing?
>
>> Or maybe that would have given you two the chance to ask your friend's
>> wife if she minded having your Aunt Rachel over (albeit in spirit).
>
>We were providing the food, and were providing very ample portions for 4
>plus leftovers. Why would any reasoable person mind such a thing?
>
>> Afterall, how else were you going to let her know that she couldn't
>> have seconds of the salmon and vegetables because you were saving them
>> for your own unexpected guest?
>
>I don't believe your analogy works. There was plenty for her to have
>seconds and for Aunt Rachel to enjoy a plate the next day. There was not,
>however, plenty for 6 to eat as much as they want and provide for Aunt
>Rachel.
>
A couple of comments... (not necessarily directed to you; more to the
situation).
Firstly, if someone is arriving uninvited to begin with, they're just the folks
who would take a "oh - we're just sitting down to dinner with our guests, what
are you doing tomorrow" badly. Mind - I think that's the exact thing that
should happen. But I'm afraid this is a sort of 'clash of culture' where you
have some folks present who ascribe to the "we don't need no stinkin' etiquette
if everyone is just nice to everyone" kind of view.
Secondly, am I the only one to whom a plan to serve leftovers *after guests* to
another relative strikes as a little dicey to begin with? Maybe it's my current
position as a mother of a 14 year old with a bottomless stomach, but IME
appetites vary, mishaps happen. That salmon could be too delicious to resist
(it was! wasn't it? ;-), and things get dropped in transit. If it were me, I'd
have viewed the outcome that there's some left over for Auntie as a bonus
possibility, not a plan. And therefore not something to be mourned as a loss
due to the arrival of the dinner-crashers.
Just to be clear, the biggest problem in this scenario, I agree, is the actions
of the couple who arrived unplanned. And that they should have been immediately
dispatched in the direction they came with apologies.
Cheers,
ZedBanty