Good Dining Place in Palo Alto, Mt.View etc
Swarna Murthy
I am looking for suggestions for a dinner place with the office
folks. We are looking for a slightly upscale dining place in the Palo
Alto, Menlo Park, Mt. View Area. Any kind of food is OK - but they
should have vegetarian choices. Price is not a consideration but
we will be going from work and so need a place which will allow
very casual attire.
Any suggestions are welcome.
Thanks,
Swarna.
Robert Hull
: Hello,
: I am looking for suggestions for a dinner place with the office
: folks. We are looking for a slightly upscale dining place in the Palo
: Alto, Menlo Park, Mt. View Area. Any kind of food is OK - but they
: should have vegetarian choices. Price is not a consideration but
: we will be going from work and so need a place which will allow
: very casual attire.
Try MacArthur Park, California Cafe or Blue Chalk Cafe.
--
The difference between knowledge and belief is doubt.
Karen O'Mara
> Try MacArthur Park, California Cafe or Blue Chalk Cafe.
I was going to suggest Rickey's Hyatt but then realized that I haven't
been in such a long time that it may not be the place it used to be...
Karen
Peter L
>
> Hello,
> I am looking for suggestions for a dinner place with the office
> folks. We are looking for a slightly upscale dining place in the Palo
> Alto, Menlo Park, Mt. View Area. Any kind of food is OK - but they
> should have vegetarian choices.
This still covers a lot of grounds. How about the new Hong Kong Flower
Lounge. Have not been for dinner. But at least they have a parking lot
next to it.
Price is not a consideration but
> we will be going from work and so need a place which will allow
> very casual attire.
This statement speaks volumns about South Bay work culture. People from
outside the area will do a double take when they read this statement.
Normally people dress **up** to go to work, esp. at a place where "price
is not a consideration." Here people dress down to go to work. What a
strange world.
Vincent Lo
chances, and food is always mediocre, considering the prices aren't that
low. Its location means it will get lots of people connected to Stanford
going there (banquet room, etc.). Blue Chalk Cafe is sorta fun, but
southern-style dishes aren't my favorite. There have been a plethora of
good restaurants opening up in Menlo Park, including big names like Left
Bank and Wild Hare.
I assume you aren't that familiar with restaurants in Palo Alto? Slightly
upscale restaurants that I like:
Chinese (western influence)--Mei Long in Mountain View/Sunnyvale, very
elegant place, fancy food (which means no grease)
Japanese--Fuki Sushi, biggest one of its kind in Palo Alto
Californian--too many to list, how about Spago Palo Alto (does anyone know
what happened to Crescent Park Grill deep in downtown?) or Empire Tap Room?
Italian--that restaurant on Sheridan a few blocks from eh, Olive Garden (I
think it starts with an R?)
Vincent
v...@cs.stanford.edu
who still hasn't been to Sent Sovi
Robert Hull <rh...@netcom19.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7rrflq$7...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com...
> Swarna Murthy <swa...@fullhouse.ebay.sun.com> wrote:
> : Hello,
> : I am looking for suggestions for a dinner place with the office
> : folks. We are looking for a slightly upscale dining place in the Palo
> : Alto, Menlo Park, Mt. View Area. Any kind of food is OK - but they
> : should have vegetarian choices. Price is not a consideration but
> : we will be going from work and so need a place which will allow
> : very casual attire.
>
>
> Try MacArthur Park, California Cafe or Blue Chalk Cafe.
>
>
Ron Drake
swa...@fullhouse.ebay.sun.com wrote:
> Hello,
> I am looking for suggestions for a dinner place with the office
> folks. We are looking for a slightly upscale dining place in the Palo
> Alto, Menlo Park, Mt. View Area. Any kind of food is OK - but they
> should have vegetarian choices. Price is not a consideration but
> we will be going from work and so need a place which will allow
> very casual attire.
Palo Alto: L'Amie Donia; Spago; Evvia; Emerson Street Bar And Grill;
MacArthur Park; Cafe Fino (less formal adjunct to Maddalena's)
Tony Lima
<v...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
[snip]
> (does anyone know
>what happened to Crescent Park Grill deep in downtown?)
[snip]
Went out of business. Too bad -- the few times we visited,
we thought the food was very good. Just too tough to draw
the crowds at that end of U. Ave. - Tony
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
RDr...@ix.netcom.com (Ron Drake) wrote:
*
* Palo Alto: L'Amie Donia; Spago; Evvia; Emerson Street Bar And Grill;
* MacArthur Park; Cafe Fino (less formal adjunct to Maddalena's)
Listen to this guy - he knows stuff.
Anne
William - 4/11/98
Jessica - 8/28/78
I am: Mom, Attorney, Professor, Childbirth Educator (in training)
Founder & Director - Western N.Y. Mother's Milk Drive (1978-1979)
My own favourite baby-related tips:
http://www.dadsrights.org/annie/kidtips.html
[NOTE! When replying, don't forget to remove the "NOSPAM"!]
Aahz Maruch
>
>This statement speaks volumns about South Bay work culture. People from
>outside the area will do a double take when they read this statement.
>Normally people dress **up** to go to work, esp. at a place where "price
>is not a consideration." Here people dress down to go to work. What a
>strange world.
And guess who's more productive?
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 (if you want to know, do some research)
Meg Worley
>Avoid California Cafe, the one at Stanford Barn. I've given them many
>chances, and food is always mediocre, considering the prices aren't that
>low. Its location means it will get lots of people connected to Stanford
>going there (banquet room, etc.).
I second that emotion. The CaliCaf is vastly overrated.
Evvia is a good place for vegetarian options if you can
deal with the noise (Swarna did have veg requirements, iirc).
It's mighty hard to eat vegetarian at a Japanese restaurant
(I snipped Vincent's recommendation of Fuki Sushi) since
most of the no-meat dishes use dashi, a stock made with
fish flakes, anyway.
Rage away,
meg
--
m...@steam.stanford.edu Comparatively Literate
Peter L
Depends on what you are trying to produce.
Chuq Von Rospach
<v...@cs.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Avoid California Cafe, the one at Stanford Barn. I've given them many
>chances, and food is always mediocre, considering the prices aren't that
>low.
So it's not just me. Whenever I've eaten at California Cafe, I've always
felt that the stuff is -- well -- okay. Interesting concepts, but never
quite right. There's either one too many ingredients or spices, or one
that's simply off ("tonight's salad is a chicken chinese salad with a
blueberry viniagrette, mango, and oregano....")
Chuq Von Rospach
>This statement speaks volumns about South Bay work culture. People from
>outside the area will do a double take when they read this statement.
>Normally people dress **up** to go to work, esp. at a place where "price
>is not a consideration." Here people dress down to go to work. What a
>strange world.
Yeah, ain't it great to be years ahead of the rest of the universe?
Meg Worley
>>Avoid California Cafe, the one at Stanford Barn. I've given them many
>>chances, and food is always mediocre, considering the prices aren't that
>>low.
Chuq writes:
>So it's not just me. Whenever I've eaten at California Cafe, I've always
>felt that the stuff is -- well -- okay. Interesting concepts, but never
>quite right. There's either one too many ingredients or spices, or one
>that's simply off ("tonight's salad is a chicken chinese salad with a
>blueberry viniagrette, mango, and oregano....")
I think their problem is just (!) a bad chef. As Chuq
says, they are a parody of Cali cuisine, and they do it
pretty badly -- the chef just has a broken imagination,
and a bruised tongue to go with it. There are a lot of
odd-sounding food combinations that work, but you won't
find them at the Stanford Barn.
Icono Clast
> Peter L <Nospam...@csus.edu> wrote:
> >Here [in the Santa Clara Valley] people dress down to go to work. What > >a strange world.
> Yeah, ain't it great to be years ahead of the rest of the universe?
Is it?
A few years ago I was sent to a particular law firm by an insurance
company. It was in one of the many high-rent buildings where one
would expect to find high-price attorneys.
As I was shown through the offices, being introduced to people and
seeing into occupied offices, I was shocked at the appearance of the
personnel.
When I returned home I called the insurance company to enquire
whether it really wanted me to be represented by such an
unprofessional looking group of people.
The insurance company explained to me something about a dress-down
day that I didn't, and don't, quite understand. If you're a
professional who meets the public you should look like a professional
who meets the public and not like the guy with his hand out at the
door to your building.
I've spent most of my working life in the inner-workings of my
employers' facilities. Because it's rarely been part of my job to
meet the public, I've not had to give any consideration to my
work-dress. When I was a bicycle messenger, however, going into all
kinds of offices where there were elegant men, beautiful women,
objects d'art, exquisite furniture, and clean and attractive
buildings and facilities, I dressed rather well and maintained as
high a degree of grooming as was possible while riding a bicycle in
the windy canyons of Montgomery and California and Sansome and
Battery and Pine, etc., streets.
When an office worker myself, I always wore a necktie or ascot and
other garments appropriate to them. (I had to stop polishing my nails
because the diazo process turned the polish a lovely shade of pale
blue.) To not do so was unthinkable. Not all change is good.
--
ICONO CLAST: A San Franciscan in 47.335² mile San Francisco.
Icono Clast
> >outside the area will do a double take when they read this statement.
> >Normally people dress **up** to go to work, esp. at a place where "price
> >strange world.
>
Those of us who get _all_ of our work done during our 35-hour week!
In years past, I used to get even more work done with a 32:30-hour
week (my door-to-door work-week was 35 hours; today it's 37:30). We
are highly productive in quality and quantity and have plenty of time
to go out
to restaurants, to go out to dance (the HighBall Lounge last night
after "Some Like It Hot"), to attend theatre ("The Threepenny Opera"
on the 30th) and the movies ("Some Like It Hot" followed by dancing
at the HiBall Lounge last night), and to play with each other and our
toys at home.
Jo Ann Malina
>
> I was going to suggest Rickey's Hyatt but then realized that I haven't
> been in such a long time that it may not be the place it used to be...
I haven't eaten there for many years, but when I drive by I see signs
that say Hugo's, the restaurant right on El Camino that used to serve
brunch, is being converted into a sports bar. Unless they have another
restaurant, that's probably not acceptable. Of course, the original
questioner didn't say just how casually everyone would be dressed...
--
Jo Ann Malina, make spamthis best to find my address
The discovery of a new dish does more for human happiness than the
discovery of a new star. -- Brillat-Savarin
Todd Michel McComb
>But this one is. Formality for formality's sake, because older
>members of the public expected it, is worthless. Now, if they
>were casual and, say, exhibiting poor hygene, that's a separate
>issue, but casual is more comfortable for most people, and those
>of us under 50 are well aware that putting a monkey in an expensive
>suit does not make that monkey a professional.
That's all well and good, as far as it goes, but as per when I
raised this topic previously, if I am going out for fine dining,
I would like an elegant atmosphere. Yes, I prioritize the food
over the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean I want to dine with
people in t-shirts either. (This paragraph is, IMO, on topic.)
(The workers in grunge attire might care to ponder the relationship
between that and working in glorified, or not so glorified, closets,
as so many of them do around here, but that is not my problem.)
Meg Worley
>That's all well and good, as far as it goes, but as per when I
>raised this topic previously, if I am going out for fine dining,
>I would like an elegant atmosphere. Yes, I prioritize the food
>over the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean I want to dine with
>people in t-shirts either. (This paragraph is, IMO, on topic.)
I disagree (except about the topicality, that is). Expecting
a connection between fancy clothes and top-notch food is
tantamount to admitting that one doesn't want top-notch food
every day. While I might not want fussy, rich food every day,
I *do* want and expect top-quality food every day, regardless
of what rags I have on. Segregating great food into the
special-event category (where the monkey suits and cocktail
frocks belong) is a serious mistake.
Don't do it, Todd. You deserve better.
Allan Schaffer
>I disagree (except about the topicality, that is). Expecting
>a connection between fancy clothes and top-notch food is
>tantamount to admitting that one doesn't want top-notch food
>every day. While I might not want fussy, rich food every day,
>I *do* want and expect top-quality food every day, regardless
>of what rags I have on. Segregating great food into the
>special-event category (where the monkey suits and cocktail
>frocks belong) is a serious mistake.
This is becoming a nicely topical discussion. I, too, like to have
high-quality food whenever I eat out, but my expectations vary. I'm
sure you'd agree there's "special occasions" where you'd expect
everyone to be very nicely dressed (suits and dresses) and likewise
would expect food & service to be a cut above your daily fare. To be
served a typical daily meal at a hoity-toity special occasion would
be a disappointment for me. What I'm thinking of is Chez TJ/Masa/La
Foret/etc level here. Then again, I definitely can't afford
(especially in waistline terms) to eat such food daily.
But I think we're discussing just plain ol' "nice" places like the
many California-cuisineish places around here. As an interesting
anecdote I customarily shave each day and almost never wear a T-shirt
to work, but yesterday happened to do the opposite for both. When my
S.O. phoned at the end of the day asking if I'd like to join her and
a friend for dinner, perhaps to Don Giovanni in Mountain View or
Evvia in Palo Alto, among my first reactions was a realization that I
really should go home & spruce up a bit first. I felt presentable
enough for typical Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, Pho, Indian, etc. but
certainly not for anything "nice".
To coin a phrase, I was dressed enough for beer but certainly not
enough for wine.
The picture Icono Clast paints of previous eras ("men dressed in
suits to go downtown") is something I admire in a nostalgic way. I,
too, think it's proper to dress well when doing something special or
presentably professional BUT (this is important) I don't tend to have
such things happening on a daily basis. Nice jeans & a nice clean
shirt are generally fine for what I'm doing. But then I'm generally
a beer drinker. For wine, I'll put on some slacks & a jacket.
Allan
--
Allan Schaffer al...@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics http://reality.sgi.com/allan
Allan Schaffer
a wine drinker.
Meg Worley
>>Segregating great food into the
>>special-event category (where the monkey suits and cocktail
>>frocks belong) is a serious mistake.
Allan writes:
>This is becoming a nicely topical discussion. I, too, like to have
>high-quality food whenever I eat out, but my expectations vary. I'm
>sure you'd agree there's "special occasions" where you'd expect
>everyone to be very nicely dressed (suits and dresses) and likewise
>would expect food & service to be a cut above your daily fare.
No, not really. I agree that there are occasions that should
be dressy, but I want to sever the tie between sartorial and
culinary splendor. My daily fare (for breakfast and supper --
campus lunches at Stanford are an embarrassment) is generally
excellent. Too often, formal occasions offer food that is a
cut *below* my daily fare, even if it is served by a dude in
top hat and tails. I'm not saying that's how it should be,
but that's how it is. I've eaten better food at Gambardella's
than at Chez Panisse.
>But I think we're discussing just plain ol' "nice" places like the
>many California-cuisineish places around here. As an interesting
>anecdote I customarily shave each day and almost never wear a T-shirt
>to work, but yesterday happened to do the opposite for both. When my
>S.O. phoned at the end of the day asking if I'd like to join her and
>a friend for dinner, perhaps to Don Giovanni in Mountain View or
>Evvia in Palo Alto, among my first reactions was a realization that I
>really should go home & spruce up a bit first. I felt presentable
>enough for typical Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, Pho, Indian, etc. but
>certainly not for anything "nice".
>
>To coin a phrase, I was dressed enough for beer but certainly not
>enough for wine.
See, that's exactly what I'd like to see change. Why should
wine be connected to dressier occasions than beer? Why don't
we demand good fixin's regardless of what we're wearing? We
don't hope for good sex only on anniversaries, settling for
mediocre the rest of the time, do we? <pause to listen for
my lurking spousal equivalent's shriek>
GTong
Worley) wrote:
> See, that's exactly what I'd like to see change. Why should
> wine be connected to dressier occasions than beer?
Because we like to make some events "special" and do so with a change in
behavior, dress, and food. In other words, it's an aesthetic, and we can.
>Why don't
> we demand good fixin's regardless of what we're wearing?
This is a completely different question. Of course, I'd like to eat well
every time.
--
To reply, remove ".out".
Todd Michel McComb
Meg Worley <m...@steam.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Expecting a connection between fancy clothes and top-notch food
>is tantamount to admitting that one doesn't want top-notch food
>every day. While I might not want fussy, rich food every day, I
>*do* want and expect top-quality food every day, regardless of
>what rags I have on.
I expect good food every day. I got food from DeeDee's the other
day, and it was good. It sure wasn't McDonald's. And I didn't
think about dressing up either.
As I know I've told you, we have many of our best meals at home.
I don't dress up for those either.
But, plainly put, a restaurant cannot be among the very best
restaurants if it is not among the very best in each category, and
that includes atmosphere.
I'm often willing to sacrifice atmosphere, or not to eat the most
expensive ingredients, to have an ordinary every-day GOOD meal.
I just don't like the idea that I can't have it all sometimes.
IClast
> if I am going out for fine dining, I would like an elegant atmosphere.
> Yes, I prioritize the food over the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean
> I want to dine with people in t-shirts either.
Who among us does not agree that one of the dumpier places we go to eat
also serves among the best food we've ever had? I choose to not name the
Viet-Namese restaurant 'cause it's already too hard to get into but it's
on one of our most unattractive blocks. Surely when we go there we don't
give a second thought to the attire of our co-patrons. It's a place we
happily patronize _because_ of the food without regard for its locale
and patrons.
Who among us does not agree that the Carnelian Room serves, on the one
hand, some pretty bad food but, on the other, provides a very pleasant
dining experience what with its great views and excellent service in a
very pleasant setting? There, too, we probably do not give a second
thought to the attire of our co-patrons _unless_ their attire is
inappropriate for the melieu (unlikely that such'd be seated, anyway).
I commented on the attire and grooming of the service personnel at The
Blue Plate Tonight. That's a far different matter. All restaurant
service personnel should be presentably dressed and groomed at all
times. We diners are eating!
--
Icono Clast -- A San Franciscan posting from San Francisco.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Steve Pope
>But, plainly put, a restaurant cannot be among the very best
>restaurants if it is not among the very best in each category, and
>that includes atmosphere.
Certainly; but I would not presuppose that a dressy restaurant
has a better atmosphere than a non-dressy restaurant....
S.
Todd Michel McComb
Steve Pope <s...@visigoth.EECS.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
>Certainly; but I would not presuppose that a dressy restaurant
>has a better atmosphere than a non-dressy restaurant....
Again, no, since a restaurant which is merely "dressy" can end up
with a bad atmosphere and some other places manage to achieve a
certain elegance in spite of what might not nominally be "dressy"
attire. However, in terms of the very best atmosphere, it requires
attractively dressed patrons, just as it requires an attractive
everything else. I'm willing to keep an open mind on what constitutes
"attractively dressed" but it's certainly the case that ordinary
street attire isn't it.
Viraj A. Master
We were driving along El Camino Real literally trolling for Indian food last
evening and came across Dhaba, a tiny Indian restaurant bursting with good
food. Unlike most Indian restaurants I've been to, this one had a definite
'home' flavor to it. The taste of the food took me back to eating at North
Indian friend's homes as a youngster in Bombay. We had delcious seekh
kababs, chicken biryani, aloo parathas and more. Cheap too! The only
downer is that it is has limited seating.
I snagged a business card, so the address is
1036 E. El Camino Real
Sunnvale
408 617 0660 (phone)
You'll recognize it, because much like a dhaba on the roadside in India,
there are tons of cars in front of it!
BTW, I have no association with this restaurant, other than being a happy
(and full) customer.
Viraj
Chuq Von Rospach
>
>> Yeah, ain't it great to be years ahead of the rest of the universe?
>
>Is it?
Yes
Chuq Von Rospach
Michel McComb) wrote:
>But, plainly put, a restaurant cannot be among the very best
>restaurants if it is not among the very best in each category, and
>that includes atmosphere.
Baloney. I've eaten at a number of truly top-notch places that are worried
about the food, and not all that much about dress. It's fairly common, for
instance, for really great restaurants that cater to tourist areas to be a
lot less formal. I'll hold Pablos, on Quebec street in downtown Victoria,
as a shining example of an elegant restaurant in the classic French style,
but which understands that the people visiting aren't going to pack a
tuxedo for their benefit.
it's not a place I'd go in cutoffs and sandals, but I don't need to dress
up, either. And there are no compromises on THEIR part. Nor is there a
need -- one person's "elegance", I guess, is another person's arrogance.
I'm a LOT more annoyed at people who use cell phones or smoke or talk
loudly in restaurants than I am people who forget to put on a tie, or wear
brown shoes with a navy suit while I'm eating...
The quality of the food has nothing to do with what the patrons are
eating, and the more a restaurant tries to tie them together, the more
likely I am to feel they're simply putting on airs to try to convince
naive eaters they're more than they really are. The REAL top-notch
restaurants let the food do the talking.
Todd Michel McComb
Chuq Von Rospach <ch...@apple.com> wrote:
>I'm a LOT more annoyed at people who use cell phones or smoke or
>talk loudly in restaurants than I am people who forget to put on
>a tie, or wear brown shoes with a navy suit while I'm eating...
I agree with that, certainly, and I wouldn't really characterize
my thoughts on attire as "annoyance" but more along the lines of
a certain incredulity.
>The REAL top-notch restaurants let the food do the talking.
C'mon. You really believe that neglecting one aspect of an experience
magically allows one to make another aspect better, or you just
don't want to wear a suit and tie? The two are simply not related:
Having a dress code and a stylish atmosphere does absolutely nothing
to prevent one from having the best food.
Chuq Von Rospach
Michel McComb) wrote:
>C'mon. You really believe that neglecting one aspect of an experience
>magically allows one to make another aspect better, or you just
>don't want to wear a suit and tie?
You use the word "neglect". I don't see it that way.
>Having a dress code and a stylish atmosphere does absolutely nothing
>to prevent one from having the best food.
Nope. But it doesn't help them have the best food, either.
Todd Michel McComb
I suppose I would need to visit your example, as I haven't.
>>Having a dress code and a stylish atmosphere does absolutely
>>nothing to prevent one from having the best food.
>But it doesn't help them have the best food, either.
As long as we're clear on that. In more than one post, I've sensed
that particular over-reaction to the idea that it *does*, which I
will agree is equally misguided.
However, at times when I want the best of everything, and will pay
for it, I want that to include attire. In regards to alternate
attire, there is certainly a difference between being creative and
being lazy, and it's usually not too hard to distinguish.
GTong
Von Rospach) wrote:
> The quality of the food has nothing to do with what the patrons are
> eating, and the more a restaurant tries to tie them together, the more
> likely I am to feel they're simply putting on airs to try to convince
> naive eaters they're more than they really are. The REAL top-notch
> restaurants let the food do the talking.
Just as you'd like to see dress and food separated, I'd like to see dress
and "airs" separated.
Suit and tie and a gown don't necessarily mean that the persons wearing
them are elistist or putting on airs.
Folks who want to dress up can do so for the fun of it, or, as I said
before, for the aesthetic. You shouldn't feel "bad" in their presence or
think that they're trying to make you feel bad.
These days, jeans and t-shirt, when someone insists on them, can be just
as much a case of putting on airs as more formal wear.
Kevin Lahey
>attractively dressed patrons, just as it requires an attractive
>everything else. I'm willing to keep an open mind on what constitutes
>"attractively dressed" but it's certainly the case that ordinary
>street attire isn't it.
Hmmm, maybe they should turn away ugly patrons at the door? [*]
My dining experience is pretty much ruined by yuppies loudly
discussing their options at the table next to me, will they
be turned away as well? Where are you gonna draw the line?
[*] Damn, I might starve if that becomes widespread!
Todd Michel McComb
Kevin Lahey <k...@baygate.bayarea.net> wrote:
>Hmmm, maybe they should turn away ugly patrons at the door?
It is done....
>My dining experience is pretty much ruined by yuppies loudly
>discussing their options at the table next to me, will they
>be turned away as well?
They should be asked to be quiet. Some restaurants will do this
and some will not. If that knowledge is available, I think it is
significant for a review.
Meg Worley
>>The REAL top-notch restaurants let the food do the talking.
[and a lot more that I agree with wholeheartedly]
Todd writes:
>C'mon. You really believe that neglecting one aspect of an experience
>magically allows one to make another aspect better, or you just
>don't want to wear a suit and tie?
I think the crux of the disagreement is that I don't see
formalwear (for your, my, or Chuq's definition formalwear)
as somehow "better" than casualwear. Both are better than
house-paintingwear, and I don't want to see *that* in a
restaurant if I can help it (for hygiene, not aesthetic
reasons), but you seem to think formalwear is *inherently*
better than ordinary clothes.
As far as I'm concerned, dressy clothes are merely a signal
of an out-of-the-ordinary, considered-especially-special
occasion, like a wedding or the opera (and even then, by
convention). And, as I've said, I don't think excellent
food should be an out-of-the-ordinary, considered-especially-
special event.
I don't think we'll be resolving this difference of
opinion any time soon. In the meantime, thank ghod
the bay area is pretty casual, or else I'd never eat
another fine meal (given my spousal equivalent's
disinclination to be seen without jeans).
Todd Michel McComb
Meg Worley <m...@steam.stanford.edu> wrote:
>I think the crux of the disagreement is that I don't see formalwear
I have indicated a willingness to be flexible on the idea of "formal
wear." Are you suggesting that no mode of dress is more attractive
than any other?
>As far as I'm concerned, dressy clothes are merely a signal
>of an out-of-the-ordinary, considered-especially-special
>occasion, like a wedding or the opera (and even then, by
>convention).
Not if you wear them regularly. (Which I don't, but if I still
had a regular job, which I've never had in the Bay Area, I would.)
>I don't think we'll be resolving this difference of
>opinion any time soon.
I suppose not, but I would like to see something about the mode of
dress of patrons included in "fine" restaurant reviews.
Meg Worley
>>I think the crux of the disagreement is that I don't see formalwear
>>as somehow "better" than casualwear.
Todd writes:
>Are you suggesting that no mode of dress is more attractive
>than any other?
No, but I'm suggesting that sartorial aesthetics are so
personal that they don't belong in restaurant reviews.
That would be something like me panning a restaurant
for serving bananas (which I hate).
>>I don't think we'll be resolving this difference of
>>opinion any time soon.
>I suppose not, but I would like to see something about the mode of
>dress of patrons included in "fine" restaurant reviews.
I would stop reading that reviewer toute de suite, and
the tuiter the sweeter. Unless, of course, it was the
Abominable Himmel, in which case it would be more ordnance
for my crusade of mockery.
Todd Michel McComb
Meg Worley <m...@steam.stanford.edu> wrote:
>No, but I'm suggesting that sartorial aesthetics are so
>personal that they don't belong in restaurant reviews.
>the tuiter the sweeter.
Ok then. I commented about it in a recent review here, of course.
If you would stop reading a reviewer for providing information
regarding what people are wearing in a restaurant, I guess there
is really nothing more to say.
dke...@best.com
I wouldn't stop, but I also wouldn't read that paragraph.
--
Dave Eisen Sequoia Peripherals: (408) 752-1400
dke...@netcom.com FAX: (408) 752-2707
In our society, you can state your views, but they have to be correct.
--- Ernie Hai, coordinator Singapore Gov't Internet Project.
Meg Worley
>>>No, but I'm suggesting that sartorial aesthetics are so
>>>personal that they don't belong in restaurant reviews.
>>>I would stop reading that reviewer toute de suite, and
Todd wrote:
>>Ok then. I commented about it in a recent review here, of course.
>>If you would stop reading a reviewer for providing information
>>regarding what people are wearing in a restaurant, I guess there
>>is really nothing more to say.
Dave writes:
>I wouldn't stop, but I also wouldn't read that paragraph.
I guess that's more like it. I can't even *remember*
Todd's comments on the subject, and I read all his posts.
Selective memory and all that.
ObFood (isn't it time we get away from clothes and back
to what matters? ;-): leftover tomato-bacon-chevre pasta
for breakfast. It's only fair, since I'm going to be
eating narsty dorm food with my frosh advisees for lunch
today.
Todd Michel McComb
>I wouldn't stop, but I also wouldn't read that paragraph.
Suppose a restaurant had a dress code, and after protecting your
delicate sensibilities from that information, you decided to go
there and got turned away. Would you then proceed to rant and
rave?
I can understand a person wanting to wear whatever they want to
wear (sort of by definition), but at this point I feel as though
I'm walking off into the Twilight Zone... LA LA LA....
dke...@best.com
>>I wouldn't stop, but I also wouldn't read that paragraph.
>
>Suppose a restaurant had a dress code, and after protecting your
>delicate sensibilities from that information, you decided to go
>there and got turned away. Would you then proceed to rant and
>rave?
Geez. I said I'm not interested in what people are wearing. I
didn't say I was a lout.
If a restaurant has certain bizarre restrictions about who can
and cannot go there then sure, I want to know. Although I would
likely ask anyway when making reservations.
Todd Michel McComb
>If a restaurant has certain bizarre restrictions about who can
>and cannot go there then sure, I want to know. Although I would
>likely ask anyway when making reservations.
I also tend to ask, but if one is to have a review, this seems like
a worthwhile thing to say in it. Now, more to the point, if there
is no actual enforced policy, but everyone in the place is in coat
& tails, wouldn't a conscientious reviewer do well to state this
too? I sure think so, as I think many people would be affected by
such a fact (whether to stay away or to wear them), and so some
remark about decor and attire is appropriate for a review. In many
cases, it would be nothing more than a footnote, but it is still
an aspect of the dining experience, yay or nay.
Aahz Maruch
Meg Worley <m...@steam.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>I don't think we'll be resolving this difference of opinion any time
>else I'd never eat another fine meal (given my spousal equivalent's
>disinclination to be seen without jeans).
Get your SE some rhinestone-studded jeans and zie'll be welcome
anywhere.
--
--- Aahz (@netcom.com)
Androgynous poly kinky vanilla queer het <*> http://www.rahul.net/aahz/
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 (if you want to know, do some research)
Allan Schaffer
>ObFood (isn't it time we get away from clothes and back
>to what matters? ;-): leftover tomato-bacon-chevre pasta
>for breakfast. It's only fair, since I'm going to be
>eating narsty dorm food with my frosh advisees for lunch
>today.
What were you wearing?
Sorry, couldn't help it. ;-)
Allan
--
Allan Schaffer al...@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics http://reality.sgi.com/allan
Felis Concolor
>>I suppose not, but I would like to see something about the mode of
>>dress of patrons included in "fine" restaurant reviews.
You mean so restaurant patrons can avoid places that have
icky, badly-dressed lower-class people eating in them?
And by the way, I suspect many "fine" restaurants don't
offer good service to people who don't look "aristocratic"
enough for them. Now, encouraging formal attire isn't
exactly the same thing; it is a much more legitimate
practice. However, I wonder if it often goes along with
the less justifiable kinds of discrimination. Perhaps...
or perhaps not. What do you guys think?
>I would stop reading that reviewer toute de suite, and
>the tuiter the sweeter. Unless, of course, it was the
>Abominable Himmel, in which case it would be more ordnance
>for my crusade of mockery.
Why is Himmel considered so abominable? That's indeed the
impression I get, but I wouldn't mind hearing the juicy
details. So, dish...
Lenore Levine
--
"You need to be sent to the showers." -- Tim May
Todd Michel McComb
Felis Concolor <conc...@netcom.com> wrote:
>You mean so restaurant patrons can avoid places that have
>icky, badly-dressed lower-class people eating in them?
Perhaps, or perhaps the opposite. Around here, it isn't exactly
a class thing anyway, or at least not a money thing. The prices
will tell you that, but as we see, there are plenty of people with
ample money who take some satisfaction in not dressing up at
expensive places.
dke...@best.com
>
>Why is Himmel considered so abominable? That's indeed the
>impression I get, but I wouldn't mind hearing the juicy
>details. So, dish...
Nothing to dish. She just has no taste at all in food. No
knowledge about it either. Her reviews are mostly about
the personal history of the owner or the head chef. She
sure can tell a mean anecdote.
Meg Worley
The lovely Lenore quotes me as saying:
>>>I suppose not, but I would like to see something about the mode of
>>>dress of patrons included in "fine" restaurant reviews.
Hey, I didn't say that! That was Tuxedo Todd, dangit.
>Why is Himmel considered so abominable? That's indeed the
>impression I get, but I wouldn't mind hearing the juicy
>details. So, dish...
Dave has already outlined the basics. If you've read
a half dozen of her 'views, you either understand
completely or Don't Get It.
Animzmirot
>This statement speaks volumns about South Bay work culture. People from
>outside the area will do a double take when they read this statement.
>Normally people dress **up** to go to work, esp. at a place where "price
>is not a consideration." Here people dress down to go to work. What a
>strange world.
>>
Actually, people dress MUCH better at work here than they do in the 128 high
tech area of Boston. I've never seen anyone wear bathing suits to work in
SilVal, but I have in Boston. And shorts are a given for most of the workforce
in the summertime in Boston.
Icono Clast
> m...@steam.stanford.edu (Meg Worley) writes:
> >>I suppose not, but I would like to see something about the mode of
> >>dress of patrons included in "fine" restaurant reviews.
>
> icky, badly-dressed lower-class people eating in them?
That's unfair!
Was served at a nice little joint cater-corner from the Newport
Beach Museum of Art by a very tall guy wearing shorts that allowed
his very hairy legs to be just about as high as the table upon which
he served us the food we were eating. We found his dress to be just
short of nauseating and it made us very uncomfortable.
The setting was quite formal in the public rooms of what was once a
nice little Victorian home. We were dressed decently enough to be
served almost anywhere although we were not what is generally
considered to be dressed up.
In my comments on The Blue Plate Tonight, I mentioned the dress and
grooming of the staff as well as the patrons as I felt each was
inappropriate for a place with its prices. I did not comment on the
dress of the staff and patrons at Picante as just about anything
short of shirtlessness would have been acceptable.
It has nothing to do with "class". It has to do with the creation of
a pleasant environment for the consumption of food. As the
environment changes, as the prices change, what is and is not
appropriate attire and grooming for staff and patrons also changes.
Does anyone care to suggest that it ought not be thataway?
--
ICONO CLAST: A San Franciscan in 47.335² mile San Francisco.
Felis Concolor
>The lovely Lenore quotes me as saying:
>>>>I suppose not, but I would like to see something about the mode of
>>>>dress of patrons included in "fine" restaurant reviews.
>Hey, I didn't say that! That was Tuxedo Todd, dangit.
Sorry.
>>Why is Himmel considered so abominable?
>Dave has already outlined the basics. If you've read
>a half dozen of her 'views, you either understand
>completely or Don't Get It.
I don't really Get It from her reviews. After all, it is
difficult to tell how off the wall a restaurant review
is without actually eating at the place under discussion.
(Well, for me it's difficult; some people, who are much
more sophisticated about fine dining, have an instant un-
derstanding of such matters.)
On the other hand, those whiny personal essays she's been
writing lately tell the whole story. In sum...well, Sheila
is someone who doesn't understand food very much, because
she's too busy being a foodie.
I sure am glad this is unusual.
Lenore Levine
--
"You need to be sent to the showers. Too bad your ancestors
got away." -- Tim May