sazerac wrote:It's only food

Has it ever been more obvious that this is not the case?

David Hammond wrote:

sazerac wrote:It's only food

Has it ever been more obvious that this is not the case?

You just don't get it, do you?

Or is it I?

My last 'contribution' to this mindblogging thread: when is less more and can more be less?

Show me a request that wasn't simple.

Show me a request that made the meal better, not worse.

[quote="Dmnkly]
Yes, yes, Steve, the people at Sona could have reasonably performed the menu you wanted, their failure to do so was purely a matter of snotty unwillingness, and therefore by suggesting that you might have been at least partially in the wrong in this scenario, I'm anti-consumer.[/quote]

Finally, someone on the Internet who owned up to the position he was taking. Now all we have to understand why any consumer would be in favor of an anti-consumer position. It's like people who have been denied health care for a pre-existing condition arguing AGAINST the health care bill.

Mike G wrote:

Show me a request that wasn't simple
Show me a request that made the meal better, not worse.

My request to leave the pork belly out of the corn soup, which was how they offered it on the menu, would have made it better. And my request at Father's Office, to leave the blue cheese off of the burger because I'm allergic, would have made it better. And my request at Animal to leave the bread crumbs off of the broccoli appetizer, because I'm allergic, would have made it better. And my request to replate my ribeye steak at Al Forno in Providence, which was swimming in home made steak sauce, because I don't like eating grilled meat that is wet, would have made it better. I can go on and on so your point doesn't make any sense.

But from a generic point of view, who cares if what someone is asking for is wrong. It's their money and why shouldn't they get what they want and what they're paying for? On what basis should a customer be deprived of being happy because of some stupid rule or a chef's ego?

Listen, God knows I've had many a heated discussion with Steve, but as I noted in the L20 thread, the very existence of this Forum supports the crux of his arguments and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise. Just go look at the the thread on the recent LTH dinner. I mean a customer brings his own sauce in to enhance the dining experience! (And it does!!!) Dishes are re-engineered. It seems like it's a Steve thing to like their food less wet. Or look at various Thai restaurant threads. One must seek out the secret menu or worse, have certain people there ordering for them. I mean who wants to eat the food the way the restaurant is serving it. This Forum exists to get people the best food. The best food may not always be on the menu, whether it is L20 or LTH.

Forget about the no blue cheese thing, that's a stupid example. What people find generally objectionable is the apparent interloping-ness of Plotz and perhaps also some fear (financial) that what is possible at Little Three Happiness is not "proper" at more expensive restaurants.

I don't see eye-to-eye with Steve P on some food issues, but I do not think he's off base here.

VI,

The big difference is that at Little Three Happiness, had they disallowed the chili oil to be added, no one would have "picked the dish up off of the table and held it out and said to the waitress, “Take this back I don’t want to eat this." And no one would have called whoever's in charge of the kitchen a scmuck for refusing to allow the homemade chili oil addition. Wanting something special is fine. Expecting it and acting like a child when you don't get it is not.

Kenny

Vital Information wrote:Just go look at the the thread on the recent LTH dinner. I mean a customer brings his own sauce in to enhance the dining experience! (And it does!!!) Dishes are re-engineered. It seems like it's a Steve thing to like their food less wet.

Rob,

Apples and oranges, both Steve and I have a twenty plus year relationship with the restaurant. We're not first time customers expecting the full Plotnicki.

Enjoy,
Gary

Kennyz wrote:VI,

The big difference is that at Little Three Happiness, had they disallowed the chili oil to be added, no one would have "picked the dish up off of the table and held it out and said to the waitress, “Take this back I don’t want to eat this." And no one would have called whoever's in charge of the kitchen a scmuck for refusing to allow the homemade chili oil addition. Wanting something special is fine. Expecting it and acting like a child when you don't get it is not.

Kenny

That's true Kenny, but that only happens because it happened. At some point there was no Gary's chili oil at LTH. It got there for a variety of reasons. The fact that it did get there does not undermine the argument that the customer wanted it there.

I guess the other thing is, I suppose, your just reacting to Steve's tantrum. How he expresses his ire does not mean that the basis of his ire is off.

To Gary's point, on one hand I surely understand it, and I understand how someone should "earn" respect or rights at a restaurant through patronage. Still, I've seen people working the restaurant (especially Thai places) on their first visits; and I reiterate that people are reacting against Plotnicki and also reacting against his desire to bring his chili oil to El Bulli.

boudreaulicious wrote:http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Internet_troll_personality_disorder

lmfao...


perhaps the restaurant/chef simply didnt want to play along with Mr. P & his requests on that visit.

Kennyz wrote:VI,

The big difference is that at Little Three Happiness, had they disallowed the chili oil to be added, no one would have "picked the dish up off of the table and held it out and said to the waitress, “Take this back I don’t want to eat this." And no one would have called whoever's in charge of the kitchen a scmuck for refusing to allow the homemade chili oil addition. Wanting something special is fine. Expecting it and acting like a child when you don't get it is not.

Kenny

Which raises the question I am asking. Why would you put up with bullshit like that when a rule like that is so stupid? And secondly, why would you criticize people who are brave enough to stand up to those types of silly rules? They make things better for other diners in the future. People who are too timid, or who are too insecure to object, make it worse for the rest of us.

This why I am so fascinated by this discussion. You guys are arguing against your own best interests.

My request to leave the pork belly out of the corn soup, which was how they offered it on the menu, would have made it better. And my request at Father's Office, to leave the blue cheese off of the burger because I'm allergic, would have made it better. And my request at Animal to leave the bread crumbs off of the broccoli appetizer, because I'm allergic, would have made it better. And my request to replate my ribeye steak at Al Forno in Providence, which was swimming in home made steak sauce, because I don't like eating grilled meat that is wet, would have made it better. I can go on and on so your point doesn't make any sense.

I haven't read your blog but I'll comment anyway:

I don't understand plopping the pork belly in the corn soup either, but it sounds like you got yourself into that one by mucking with the menu as it was in the first place. As at L2O, if you'd just ordered like a normal schmoe, you'd have been happier.

In the case of allergies, I don't think the results would have been better in a purely aesthetic sense, they merely would have been something you could eat without medical issues, and not ordering what you can't eat seems like it would have been a better choice in both those cases than asking them to give you 80% of an existing, well-balanced dish.

Likewise, I'm no fan of steak sauce except as a way of covering your mistakes, but didn't they mention this on the menu? That's the time to have avoided the steak sauce puddle, it seems to me.

In any case, all of these seem to me ultimately to be less arguments for the diner tinkering with the dish, than for the diner simply ordering better in the first place.

Mike G wrote::

I don't understand plopping the pork belly in the corn soup either,

Case closed. Now all we need to do is to get you to criticize the restaurant, not me, for doing it.

Vital Information wrote:

Kennyz wrote:VI,

The big difference is that at Little Three Happiness, had they disallowed the chili oil to be added, no one would have "picked the dish up off of the table and held it out and said to the waitress, “Take this back I don’t want to eat this." And no one would have called whoever's in charge of the kitchen a scmuck for refusing to allow the homemade chili oil addition. Wanting something special is fine. Expecting it and acting like a child when you don't get it is not.

Kenny

That's true Kenny, but that only happens because it happened. At some point there was no Gary's chili oil at LTH. It got there for a variety of reasons. The fact that it did get there does not undermine the argument that the customer wanted it there.

I guess the other thing is, I suppose, your just reacting to Steve's tantrum. How he expresses his ire does not mean that the basis of his ire is off.

I'm not arguing against one's desire to have what one wants at a restaurant. In fact, in many ways this forum is all about celebrating places that do special things for their customers. That's wonderful, but it doesn't make the reverse acceptable. Just because you buy a special gift for your best friend on his birthday doesn't mean it's OK to spit in the face of your lesser friends on theirs.

I don't understand why asking for a dish to be addeed to a tasting menu that is already on another of a restaurant's menus is unreasonablle. Has no one here ever addded a dish or dishes to a tasting menu? Never asked for a substitute dish? I would think that's absolutelly fair game when dining at a high end restaurant. Now, how you do it, that's another matter

Steve Plotnicki wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Yes, yes, Steve, the people at Sona could have reasonably performed the menu you wanted, their failure to do so was purely a matter of snotty unwillingness, and therefore by suggesting that you might have been at least partially in the wrong in this scenario, I'm anti-consumer.

Finally, someone on the Internet who owned up to the position he was taking. Now all we have to understand why any consumer would be in favor of an anti-consumer position. It's like people who have been denied health care for a pre-existing condition arguing AGAINST the health care bill.

Read what I wrote immediately thereafter and get your sarcasm detector checked, Steve. The whole point was that I don't believe for a second that your given is the case (or at the very least, I don't believe you're in a position to assume it). And I haven't even heard the other side of the story.

jesteinf wrote: Now, how you do it, that's another matter

Actually how you do it doesn't matter either. If you ask, the restaurant should comply if they have the capability to do so. And restaurants that refuse should be criticized to the point where that behavior costs them business in the future.

The other side of the story doesn't matter either. I am the paying customer, I asked for it, they are in a position to provide me with my request, and they have no reason for not doing so other than they chose not to.

I don't really care if a chef thinks he f*cking Picasso. If I insist on having my steak rare, or dry, or cooked without salt, that is how they should serve it and for the life of me I can't think of a single reason why a restaurant shouldn't comply with that type of request.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:The other side of the story doesn't matter either. I am the paying customer, I asked for it, they are in a position to provide me with my request, and they have no reason for not doing so other than they chose not to.

You don't know this!!!

Steve Plotnicki wrote:I don't really care if a chef thinks he f*cking Picasso. If I insist on having my steak rare, or dry, or cooked without salt, that is how they should serve it and for the life of me I can't think of a single reason why a restaurant shouldn't comply with that type of request.

Just because you can't think of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist!

Do you really believe that when your order went back, the kitchen sat back there and thought, "Ha ha... watch, we're really going to muck up this guy's dinner!" Obviously the way you ordered threw them off somehow, you insisted upon it even though you were warned, and yet you persist in this belief that what you requested was something so simple that it obviously could have been easily achieved when the fact that it wasn't is proof to the contrary!

And Mike's point remains valid, despite your unwillingness to accept fact. You continue to state as fact that our position degrades experience when by your own admission yours is the experience that has been degraded. Since you seem to like the health care analogy, it's like those who say "Your system in your crazy country obviously hurts people and here are the reasons why" when the data clearly demonstrate that they have better outcomes. Despite your insistence that your position is better as fact, all real-world evidence laid out is to the contrary. Do you stop to think that your assumption might, in fact, be wrong, or do you press on, resolute in the belief that your way is obviously the way despite all hard evidence to the contrary?

Dmnkly wrote:Do you really believe that when your order went back, the kitchen sat back there and thought, "Ha ha... watch, we're really going to muck up this guy's dinner!"

Actually, I think that is entirely possible, and it would have been a completely rational approach for the kitchen to take.

Kennyz wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Do you really believe that when your order went back, the kitchen sat back there and thought, "Ha ha... watch, we're really going to muck up this guy's dinner!"

Actually, I think that is entirely possible, and it would have been a completely rational approach for the kitchen to take.

After making a scene when he didn't like their first take on his request, I'd agree. But I was, in fact, referring to the first pass.

Actually I do know it because the manager came to speak to us and he admitted the chef had a penchant for being difficult in these instances. And the rest of your post doesn't make sense. A restaurant's job is to make their customers happy. And if any type of special request throws them off to the extent that they can't perform it, they should close up shop and open a car wash instead.

In my experience, the best restaurants in the world have no problem with complying with these types of requests. The problem comes when a restaurant is run by an ego-maniac, a chef who is lazy, or a place that is under-staffed, all things a restaurant should be criticized for.

Kennyz wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Do you really believe that when your order went back, the kitchen sat back there and thought, "Ha ha... watch, we're really going to muck up this guy's dinner!"

Actually, I think that is entirely possible, and it would have been a completely rational approach for the kitchen to take.

What happens in a Thai restaurant when the request comes in to make it "Thai style".

Dmnkly wrote:

Kennyz wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Do you really believe that when your order went back, the kitchen sat back there and thought, "Ha ha... watch, we're really going to muck up this guy's dinner!"

Actually, I think that is entirely possible, and it would have been a completely rational approach for the kitchen to take.

After making a scene when he didn't like their first take on his request, I'd agree. But I was, in fact, referring to the first pass.

But maybe they already "knew he was coming"

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Actually I do know it because the manager came to speak to us and he admitted the chef had a penchant for being difficult in these instances.

And it just slipped your mind to mention this in your blog post?

Steve Plotnicki wrote:And the rest of you post doesn't make sense. A restaurant's job is to make their customers happy. And if any type of special request throws them off to the extent that they can't perform it, they should close up shop and open a car wash instead.

So by your definition, all requests can be reasonably performed, therefore any request that isn't fulfilled means that a restaurant shouldn't exist. Whether or not you realize it, or whether or not you meant it, what you just stated was that any restaurant that doesn't perform something you ask shouldn't be in business.

Vital Information wrote:

Kennyz wrote:

Dmnkly wrote:Do you really believe that when your order went back, the kitchen sat back there and thought, "Ha ha... watch, we're really going to muck up this guy's dinner!"

Actually, I think that is entirely possible, and it would have been a completely rational approach for the kitchen to take.

What happens in a Thai restaurant when the request comes in to make it "Thai style".

Depends. If it's a normal situation, the restaurant probably makes it extra spicy and tasty. If it's a situation where the restaurant knows the requestor to be a giant PITA, perhaps they pee in it.

Kennyz wrote:Depends. If it's a normal situation, the restaurant probably makes it extra spicy and tasty. If it's a situation where the restaurant knows the requestor to be a giant PITA, perhaps they pee in it.

Are you saying that only people known to the restaurant should get their food tasty?

Wait, I said that wrong. What I was trying to say, is that sometimes it takes being a bit of a prick to get tasty food, and sometimes one can be perfectly nice and reasonable and not get the tasty food. I mean c'mon, don't we all have experiences not getting the best stuff.

Sigh.

Vital Information wrote:

Kennyz wrote:Depends. If it's a normal situation, the restaurant probably makes it extra spicy and tasty. If it's a situation where the restaurant knows the requestor to be a giant PITA, perhaps they pee in it.

Are you saying that only people known to the restaurant should get their food tasty?

Nope. I'm saying that with restaurants, as with all businesses, there are some customers you'd rather lose than please.

Dmnkly wrote:So by your definition, all requests can be reasonably performed, therefore any request that isn't fulfilled means that a restaurant shouldn't exist.

You just conflated two of my points to make a non-point. What I said was that the types of requests we are discussing, should not throw a restaurant off of their game. And to add to that point, if they do for some reason, the chef, or someone else of importance, should appear at your table and apologize for not being able to do it while offering a rational explanation. I then added a metaphor to the example, that they should "open a car wash." I wasn't being literal. But I do think that restaurants who refuse these types of requests for no apparant reason should be severely criticized to the point where it costs them business.

How else are consumers able to change stupid policies unless they complain about them publicly?

Kennyz wrote:

Vital Information wrote:

Kennyz wrote:Depends. If it's a normal situation, the restaurant probably makes it extra spicy and tasty. If it's a situation where the restaurant knows the requestor to be a giant PITA, perhaps they pee in it.

Are you saying that only people known to the restaurant should get their food tasty?

Nope. I'm saying that with restaurants, as with all businesses, there are some customers you'd rather lose than please.

I edited my post above.

Yes, there are many a times when restaurants write off a customer. There are also times when a customer is not getting the best a place can offer for no especially good reason.

Or put it this way, there are times when a customer gets better food because people like Steve act like a prick. If you read this forum you know to ask for the chili sauce