287590 Thu Sep 06 01:41:24 -0700 2001 40 27 General Chowhounding Topics 0 1547865 This question has bothered me for so many years it's scary. I would be interested in what other diners think. About 15 years ago I went to a "hip and trendy" restaurant in Upstate New York that believe it or not is still in business and is still "hip and trendy". I ordered a veal dish which when cut into oozed blood onto the plate. I asked for the veal to be cooked through until it was white, it went back to the kitchen and a new portion was cooked (that was nice) and it was exactly the same. It went back and a THIRD brand new portion came out, exactly the same. By this time I was very hungry. The explanation was that the entree was prepared "to the chef's taste". I paid for the salad and my guests dinner, and for the only time in my life did not leave a tip for the waiter. Would be interested to know what the chowhounds think about this. Thu Sep 06 01:41:24 -0700 2001 0 sylvesterrussell 1 1547868 My comment: What happened to the truism that "The customer is always right"? Under the circumstances, I would have gone further than you: I would have told the waiter that the chef could pay for the dish, and I would have complained to the manager and demanded that I not be charged for a dish which was deliberately (un)cooked contrary to my instructions. Thu Sep 06 04:31:42 -0700 2001 1547865 0 Pan 2 1547885 Still and all, I have always wanted to own a restaurant where I could state--on the menu---that no steak will be cooked beyond medium (I'd prefer to make it "medium rare" but I am a tolerant sort). I will not participate in murder of quality items. As to duck, well, medium rare is optimal but medium can be tolerated for the squeamish. Wild duck preferred, of course. A cook ---I hate the loose use of 'chef"---who is a tyrant is to be preferred often to these TV tinker toys with their impossible-to-obtain ingredients and their appalling shortcuts (because of TV time restraints, obviously). TV can and does occasionally show good cooking but the majority of these efforts are less informative than good cookbooks. Thu Sep 06 09:07:55 -0700 2001 1547868 0 BD 3 1548061 And the menu should be prominently displayed near the door (on-line these days?) so that people know what to expect. I think this hits the mail on the head. The problem is not that the kitchen won't conspire in ruining good ingredients, it's that the customer doesn't know the limits on his liberty in ordering until he is seated or, worse yet, served. Sat Sep 08 14:16:48 -0700 2001 1547885 0 Christopher Oliver 1 1547876 If they were unwilling to cook the dish according to your specifications, they should have told you right away so you could order something else. Thu Sep 06 07:30:44 -0700 2001 1547865 0 ironmom 1 1547880 I agree with Ironmom and Pan. I mean, who's Eating and Paying for the dish - you or the chef? There are times when a dish is really a 'creation' of the chef and they like to prepare it a certain way without 'interference' from diners but this doesn't sound like what happened to you. You had an obstinate chef. Similar situations have happened to me. A few years ago, the Times gave an excellent review to a restaurant near Bennington, Vermont. Since a friend and I were going there anyway, we tried it. I asked the waitress to have the duck breast cooked medium. She said "the chef does not believe in that and he always prepares it rare." I asked her to personally ask the chef to prepare it my way. She asked him and then came back and replied "no, he will only prepare the duck rare." My friend and I looked at each other, got up and left. Another time, in Manhattan, I ordered soft scrambled eggs for brunch. They came out cooked like mini golf balls. I asked the waiter for another plate. He returned several minutes later and said "the chef does not prepare scrambled eggs - would you like an omelet?" I get "mean" when I'm hungry so I marched into the kitchen to talk with the prima donna chef but was cut off by the manager. I explained the situation and he talked to the chef (why was all this necessary?). Any generic diner can make scrambled eggs so I suppose this dish was too common for this chef. By then, I did not want eggs and ordered lox & bagel. How could they mess that up? The manager realized how ridiculous the situation was and comped us the brunch but that was not what I was looking for. Thu Sep 06 07:54:22 -0700 2001 1547865 0 Ruby 1 1547888 The chef was a jerk. Not only did he not take care of his customer, but he spent the cost of three portions of veal to prove how much of a jerk he could be. While you were absolutely correct not to pay for a dish that was not prepared the way you requested, why did you take it all out on the waitress by not leaving a tip? Did you punish her because you feel she inadequately represented your requests to the kitchen or because she was supposed to exercise some control over the behavior of the man in whites? Thu Sep 06 09:34:32 -0700 2001 1547865 0 Deven Black 2 1547897 He expressed his anger by not leaving a tip because that is the only effective way a customer _can_ express his anger at a restaurant. Talking to the management can help, but if the restaurant gives a damn and the manager feels like doing his job. There's been a common theme on these boards that the tip should only be effected by the service itself, not by anything attributable to the kitchen. I disagree. Note as well that we do not know that the fault lay with the chef. Perhaps the waiter didn't bother to pass on the message. Thu Sep 06 10:20:27 -0700 2001 1547888 0 Josh Mittleman 3 1547906 Or maybe the chef was trying to sabotage the server's tip that time. If so, it worked, didn't it? Thu Sep 06 10:58:46 -0700 2001 1547897 0 ironmom 3 1547954 A good dozen years ago, a companion and I brunched (for the first and last time) at America, a huge, loud restaurant on East 18th St. (The restaurant has a permanent place at the top of Zagat's "Teflon" list--bad restaurants that remain unaccountably popular despite critics and excruciating word-of-mouth.) Anyway, we were seated in the mélée for 15 minutes or so before a beleaguered waiter approached with menus. After a few moments, we ordered. My companion ordered a mushroom and Swiss cheese omelet, and I ordered a Nova/bagel/cream cheese. After 10 minutes, the waiter returned, red-faced, and said: "I want to apologize for this, but the chef refuses to make a mushroom and Swiss cheese omelet." "What? Why?" asked my companion. "He just absolutely--won't do it. I'm so sorry. Can I please get you something else?" The fellow seemed near tears, so my friend said, "Yes, but what ELSE won't the chef make today?" "He'll make most any ... other... omelet." "Okay, then, cheddar cheese." "Thank you, sir." While hardly wimps, my friend and I are both willing to be flexible in any number of situations (we've also traveled widely together, which requires a certain amount of flexibility). And I'd actually forgotten about the incident until I read the original post in this thread. Oh--we left the usual tip. I'm quite sure it wasn't the waiter's fault. I've known more than my share of chefs in this life! Besides, becoming adamantine or nasty in these situations rarely achieves anything but dyspepsia. The worst thing you can do is never to return, and to tell others to stay away. Although this certainly hasn't hurt America's revenues! Ghastly place. Thu Sep 06 15:49:52 -0700 2001 1547897 0 Tom Steele 2 1548048 Hi Deven, I'm trying to put myself in the waiters shoes for a minute. I have 15 years in retail, have owned businesses, and think I know a thing or two about customer service. If drop an order in the kitchen and the "chef" (I think this term gets bandied around a little too loosely) tells me he's not going to prepare a meal the way it was ordered I'm headed for the manager. Some prima donna with a bad attitude isn't going to put me in a situation where my efforts are going to go unrewarded. I'm going to give my manager the option of informing my table that he is too spineless to keep his kitchen under control, or reign in his wayward cook. I believe a waiter has the greatest responsibility to the diner. This is the person who will decide how gracious to be with the server when the check comes. If another restaraunt employee creates a situation that impedes a waiter from performing their duties in a satisfactory manor the waiter should use all reasonable means to remedy that situation. I shudder every time my mother orders a steak. Always well done. Cooked through, gray, not a hint of pink. I consider a well done filet mignon ruined. She thinks it's just right. Come to my table and tell me that the kitchen refuses to cook my mothers meal the way she likes it, you have a problem. Once it's dropped in my lap a long list of things will suffer; my mood, my attitude, my willingness to pay my check, my willingness to reward my server for their efforts. I don't expect the kitchen to eat their filets well done, but you can bet your last dollar I expect them to have the class to serve my mother a well done filet if she orders one. If a waiter isn't going to be part of the solution, I consider them part of the problem. Chow!!! Sat Sep 08 03:59:41 -0700 2001 1547888 0 Brandon Nelson 3 1548060 I don't think it's particularly classy to destroy ingredients on customer request. This fits much within the "Eggs Benedict and HOLD THE HOLLANDAISE" request. In other words, is the kitchen only a muscle for preparing food, or is there a brain and spirit exercising judgement in cooking attached? I don't like big attitudes either, but I also think that doing anything for the dollar merely makes one a whore. Some chefs and cooks don't cater to the tastes of some customers, and as long as there is clientele enough to keep the business viable, this is no crime. At the same time, I don't think you should need to pay for meat that is not fixed (over/under-done) as you choose. Even there, I think there are issues: e.g. someone who complains that his steak tartare is underdone is a fool. I've eaten (and payed for) too many overdone steaks simply because I despise waste, but I am not inclined to be a repeat customer at those restaurants that fail to understand "au bleu." As long as other customers are there to fill the shoes I leave, the kitchen is welcome from a business perspective to overcook the steaks, and I'm welcome to not offer my custom in the future. Not all marriages are successful. Quelle suprise! Sat Sep 08 13:15:26 -0700 2001 1548048 0 Christopher Oliver 4 1548087 Hmmmmmm.... I'm not sure how to take the whole "classy" and "destroy" bit. I don't pretend that my palette or preferences are in any way superior to the next persons. I have my likes and dislikes. I allow others to indulge theirs. I'm not into the whole "whore" notion because someone makes a living. I am weary of those who would treat those who behave poorly like celebrities. They aren't "suffering for their art". I am vehemently opposed to that part of the public that celebrates that bad behavior. I am grateful when I enjoy a meal at a restaraunt, but I keep it in perspective. The person that cooked me that meal wasn't teaching our children, healing the sick, or rescuing the endangered (at least, not a the moment). No. They simply made me dinner. I'm not likely to let anyone wallow in self importance for that. Chow!!! Sun Sep 09 02:10:46 -0700 2001 1548060 0 Brandon Nelson 4 1548096 Your comment 1: "I don't think it's particularly classy to destroy ingredients on customer request. This fits much within the "Eggs Benedict and HOLD THE HOLLANDAISE" request." Well, Christopher, I'm one of those *non-classy* people who does request the kitchen hold the hollandaise. One-quarter cup of the sauce contains approximately 455 calories (which will all be mopped up with the English muffin!) and the fat from calories is about 449. When Eggs Benedict were introduced sometime in the 1920's, people weren't so calorie/health-conscious but now they are so I guess there are a legion of 'non-classy' diners out there! Anyway, I'd rather use those calories for dessert. Your comment 2: "In other words, is the kitchen only a muscle for preparing food, or is there a brain and spirit exercising judgement in cooking attached?" Yes, of course there's a brain and spirit attached to a chef but like other service industries, said chef needs to be flexible and accommodating to some degree. I frequent restaurants a great deal to relax with friends, to soften the edges of the workaday world, and be served a good meal without AGITA. If a prima donna chef won't eliminate an "unhealthy" ingredient or serves me meat or fish that has been cooked so rare it's almost inedible, or make any slight concession, I'm not going there anymore. From past experiences with tempermental chefs, I usually hear in the not-too-distant future that said chef is on the unemployment line. Sun Sep 09 10:17:05 -0700 2001 1548060 0 Ruby 5 1548493 I agree that the chef, in the very first post, should have coooked the meat to order, or there should have at least been a note in the menu. I must say, though, that the whole point of a menu is to give a person choices. You don't want all the calories from the Hollandaise on the eggs bendict, then don't order eggs benedict. Order something else off the menu. Now having said that, I do feel that there are some things that are perfectly fine asking for. You want sauce on the side for a dish: fine. You are allergic to peanuts, so please don't use it as a *garnish*: fine. In the case of the original poster, it is normal practice to cook meat to order unless it is otherwise noted in a menu and you want it cooked well done: fine. But, you are suggesting that it is perfectly acceptable to walk into a pizza parlor and ask for pizza with no cheese, sauce, or any grease...don't order the damned pizza then. Just as an aside, have there been any conversations about the newish (past few years) trend in mid-priced restaurants about cooking certain meats to a minimum doneness? I myself don't like a burger unless it is only medium. But nobody ever seems to complain that they can't get their steak rare enough. Sorry if I have gone on and sounded rather nasty. I am a state worker who must appease the "all-knowing" public...it just gets old. If you don't like odors, don't move in next door to the landfill. Fri Sep 21 10:16:34 -0700 2001 1548096 0 keiler 4 1548121 The restaurateur is, fundamentally, in the business of hospitality. The artistry of the cook, however glorious, is (to put it teleologically) objectively ordered to that end and subordinate to it. Artiste chefs who fail to understand this principle are professionally unsuitable for the commercial restaurant industry. While I believe American customers have been overly coddled in accommodating special (and increasingly often unreasonable) food requests, the situation described here is *far* from such a situation. The diner made a very reasonable request. The restaurant (not the server) failed the diner in its prime objective. Sun Sep 09 19:35:52 -0700 2001 1548060 0 Karl 5 1548127 Since I seem to be grilled here alive, I will be blunt. Should the customer be allowed to dig his own grave by specifing a meal which will disgrace the kitchen, not because they are artistes needing time on the unemployment line to teach them their place, but because the food is horrid when fixed that way? I strongly believe after some years in the computer biz that, in some cases though far from all, the customer is more than capable of not only digging that grave but hauling others in with him as well. Should he be supported in genuinely egregious judgement? I can't in clear conscience say yes. This is no way reflects on the opening of this discussion. I agree that the kitchen in question needs a bit of adjustment to put it kindly, maybe not so much because of the how the meat was prepared but because of the weak appeal to the chef's infall- ibility on the matter. I am not defending that situation, I'm saying that there are rare cases where the customer's suggestion should be resisted not because it insults the artistic sensibilites of the kitchen (tongue planted firmly in cheek), but that it damages the food and in turn reflects on the kitchen's quality and reputation in turn. "Ya really want KETCHUP on that STRAWBERRY GENOISE?" For what it's worth, if I eat out, it is precisely because I want what the kitchen will offer me; I pay just as much for their judgement as skill. If I'm unhappy with that, I eat elsewhere or cook it myself. Sun Sep 09 21:36:43 -0700 2001 1548121 0 Christopher Oliver 6 1548129 Christopher - sorry, but how pretentious can ya get? ;) Sun Sep 09 22:16:43 -0700 2001 1548127 0 Ruby 7 1548147 I don't think this is pretentious, I think it's reasonable. It does depend on where you are. A restaurant that's set up just to feed people is different from one that's set up to showcase its chef's cooking. I'll attempt another musical analogy: Some entertainers take requests; some don't. You can usually tell by the venue. If you are at a bar and there's a cover band playing, they're probably pretty amenable to taking requests. A band at a wedding or party will probably take requests, since they're there to entertain the guests. A rock band, on a friendly night or in a small venue, might take a request, if they feel like it, but it's a favor to the requester. I wouldn't expect them to take requests at the Met. Mon Sep 10 08:58:57 -0700 2001 1548129 0 MU 8 1548160 Your comment: "A restaurant that's set up just to feed people is different from one that's set up to showcase its chef's cooking." That's true to an extent, MU, but the end result is one goes to a restaurant to get fed. The original poster who wrote about the chef who undercooked the veal did not get fed what he wanted. Yes, there are many restaurants where people go because a chef is a 'superstar' and IMO the chef who undercooked the veal is no superstar but an obstinate prima donna. Mon Sep 10 11:06:01 -0700 2001 1548147 0 Ruby 6 1548144 If they want ketchup put the bottle on the table and let them play. Who knows - perhaps we will find a budding food genius in disguise!! Its no worse than the diva cooks throwing tantrums because we resist their fantasys. ( anyone who takes the second sentence as written deserves whatever they get) Mon Sep 10 07:02:53 -0700 2001 1548127 0 Gene 3 1548068 Brandon, I agree 100 percent. A restaurant is in business to serve the customer, period. Tastes differ, and what some people consider a "ruined" piece of meet others think is perfect. I say meet the customers' needs or get into a different business. Sat Sep 08 16:22:38 -0700 2001 1548048 0 Ira Kaplan 4 1548070 I agree. If the cook will not cook to his customers request he should say so ON THE MENU. That way we will not waste time and can walk out if it doesn't suit us. Reviewers would do us all a favor by clearly stating in their reviews that this situation exists and we will be able to avoid this obnoxious practice. Perhaps these simple suggestions might get some cooks down from their rarefied cloud world. Sat Sep 08 17:17:09 -0700 2001 1548068 0 Gene 3 1548078 As a restaurant manager and former restaurant owner I think that the waiter's first responsibility is to the house. Often -- but not always -- that means acceding to the customer's wishes. Yes, in the case we are commenting on the waiter should have gotten the manager, but I suspect the manager was also intimidated by the cook, who possibly was the restaurant's owner. And yes, the waiter should always respect the customer (especially when it is HARD to), but in the real world that waiter has to live with that cook a lot longer than with that customer. It sounded to me like the waiter tried to communicate the diner's wishes to the chef. Asking more than that is asking the waiter to fall on his sword. It may be the honorable thing for the waiterto do, but it is a lot for a diner to ask. Sat Sep 08 20:38:49 -0700 2001 1548048 0 Deven Black 4 1548083 "As a restaurant manager and former restaurant owner I think that the waiter's first responsibility is to the house." Do you think it's reasonable that customers believe the waiter's first responsibility is to them, and penalize them for something like the outrageous incident detailed to open this thread? People in service positions undoubtedly have to look over their shoulders at their bosses, but the nature of their jobs is that they are ostensibly there to serve the customer, and get judged on that basis. Sun Sep 09 00:31:31 -0700 2001 1548078 0 Pan 5 1548085 "People in service positions undoubtedly have to look over their shoulders at their bosses, but the nature of their jobs is that they are ostensibly there to serve the customer, and get judged on that basis." and, moreover, waiters receive 95% of their pay from customers, not restaurateurs. So they truly are working for the customers. On the other hand, Devon's point--that the waiter's got to live with the chef and the house a lot more than with any one customer (which is by the way why I refuse to use agents in writing or in music)--is well taken ciao Sun Sep 09 01:07:06 -0700 2001 1548083 0 Jim Leff 5 1548095 Yes, it is reasonable for the customer to believe the waiter's first responsibility is to them and not the house. This is just part of what makes the waiter's job so difficult. And while I can completely understand the customer's desire to punish someone for the incident, and the waiter is the one more easily and directly punishable, I do not think it is the right thing to do in this instance. It seems the waiter fought the battle with the chef. Not tipping him or her is punishment for not WINNING the battle. I'm not up on the ethics of warfare, but it seems to me that you pay the mercenary whether or not they win the war. Is it different in music? If someone commissions you to compose a work do you only get paid if they like it? Sun Sep 09 10:13:32 -0700 2001 1548083 0 Deven Black 6 1548140 I'm not a composer, but I think that your analogy is inapt. What you should ask is whether a composer who is commissioned to write a piece for orchestra would get paid if s/he wrote a piece for wind band instead. The dish was not to the specifications of the customer, so the dish shouldn't be paid for. As for whether the waiter fought for the customer or not, that isn't as clear to me as it is to you. What is clear is that, for whatever reason, the waiter did not ascertain that the chef would not cook the food to the customer's specifications until the third time around. Forgive me if I think the waiter may be somewhat at fault for this. Mon Sep 10 02:47:23 -0700 2001 1548095 0 Pan 6 1548187 You always make me think... I love the mercenary angle dude, it's brilliant. In this case though the soldier failed to go to his general when a seargeant was hamstringing the efforts of the army. Part of this thread did a vanishing act. I have previously written I don't believe in "punishing" waitstaff that does a good job. Even in difficult circumstances like the one we are discussing. I don't stiff waitstaff, unless they prove to suck. I include comped items in my tipping under circumstances where the kitchen goofed and I ended up with free drinks, dessert, coffee, whatever. I have an interesting spin on the "composer" angle too. I recently saw bits and pieces of an Aerosmith special on VH1. Ir was the making of "Pump". One of the most interesting sub plots was the battle that goes on between the band, their management, and the record label, over the contents of an album. The band wants to illustrate who they are and where they are musically, and spiritually on an album. The lable wants radio ready top 40 hits. Management tries to arbitrate some sort of balancing act to appease these two agendas. It may take a band (even established multi million selling groups) 4 or 5 albums to get a lable to include a particular song on an album. Even if it is a bootleg classic and a staple in their live shows. Some never see release. Chow!!! Mon Sep 10 13:59:07 -0700 2001 1548095 0 Brandon Nelson 4 1548086 Hey dude! Deven, there was a reason I chose to respond to you on this thread. I knew you would have the perspective I lacked because of experience. I can sympathize with a waiter put in this position, but I stand firm on the issue. I am more than O.K. with the folks in the kitchen refusing outrageous requests. I don't think cooking something a little longer to suit someones tastes falls in that category. Minor details can make or break a dish. Most chefs know this, but sometimes they wear blinders. The diner's tastes are just as important as the chef's. Even more so. They are the ones paying the check. I always treat waitstaff that serve me fairly, graciously, and generously. I once took my family out for fathers day t a restaraunt we frequent. The kitchen made a string of 5 or 6 mistakes that soured the evening. Our waitress was the lone bright spot. She handled the disasters well, and was up front and honest about them. At the end of the meal she got a 25% tip (and I tipped on the drinks we were comped). The manager got a 10 minute chewing out. The restaraunt mailed me a gift certificate for dinner for 4 (unexpected, but appreciated). Had the waitress not lived up to my (not too lofty) expectations she would have gone home with much less. I'm no shrinking violet. If I was on the waitstaff at a place where I had to battle the kitchen to serve my customer I'd fight that battle. Doing a good job means that much to me. If a waiter is willing to indulge some jerk in the kitchen to the point of affecting his tip thats his perogative. I am not a person who would allow that to happen to me. Thank you for the added insight. It makes me think in broader terms, but it doesn't change my mind. Chow!!! Sun Sep 09 01:43:09 -0700 2001 1548078 0 Brandon Nelson 5 1548094 >> I am more than O.K. with the folks in the kitchen refusing outrageous requests. I don't think cooking something a little longer to suit someones tastes falls in that category. I agree. The chef was completely unreasonable and a jerk. I'd use stronger language but this is a family website. And it sounded like the waitress tried to battle the chef on the customer's behalf. If that was so, not tipping her was punishing her for not WINNING the battle, and that is unreasonable. Part of the problem is that no one got the restaurant's manager involved. The customer should have because the customer was not being taken care of satisfactorialy. The waitress should have because part of the manager's job is interceding in and resolving disputes between staff members. That being said, most managers -- aware that cooks are harder to replace than waitresses -- would placate the cook. That done, the manager should then go the the diner and, whilst bowing low and tugging on his forelock, apologize for the kitchen's inability to prepare veal to the customer's liking and offer any other dish on the menu gratis. It may not have completely satisfied, but it would have been a better resolution. >If I was on the waitstaff at a place where I had to battle the kitchen to serve my customer I'd fight that battle.<< Perhaps. But you would not fight it often because you would get very tired of it very quickly. You, then, would have two choices: acquiesce and make the best of it you can, or resign (the falling on the sword I referred to in my posting). Either way the chef wins. Sun Sep 09 10:04:32 -0700 2001 1548086 0 Deven Black 6 1548100 And customers are harder to replace than cooks! Sun Sep 09 13:13:13 -0700 2001 1548094 0 Gene 7 1548150 Actually, in many cases, customers are much easier to replace than cooks. But that does not justify the kind of behavior the cook displayed. Mon Sep 10 09:51:17 -0700 2001 1548100 0 Deven Black 1 1547892 Although I agree they should have indicated to you right away that they were unwilling to cook it to your specifications, it's an interesting question whether the customer is truly "always right". I think I've seen it expressed on other threads at this site that chefs very often have created dishes with the meat cooked a specific way (or with certain ingredients included), believing that such presentation is the only way in which the dish can be enjoyed as intended. Changing how much the meat is cooked or removing an ingredient would change the dish and thus make it non-representative of the chef's cooking. In other words, had the chef cooked it to your specifications and then it turned out the dish did not taste good (just as the chef had thought), the chef and restaurant would bear the brunt of that mistake by having bad word of mouth. So I am sympathetic to a restaurant or chef that believes it knows best and that the customer is not always right. Thu Sep 06 10:13:22 -0700 2001 1547865 0 Abrocadabro 2 1547957 While I might have some sympathy for a chef who believes his dish will be ruined if he cooks it to the customer's specifications, I have no sympathy at all for the restaurant staff (waiter, chef and manager) that makes a diner wait for his meal through three iterations and *then* tells him they won't cook it his way. Although I'm usually sympathetic to waiters, the waiter is the diner's only way of communicating with the kitchen. A waiter should be somewhat of an advocate for the customer, or he's not doing his job. Put another way, a waiter whose only allegiance is to the kitchen deserves to survive on what the restaurant pays him (rather than the somewhat larger proportion of his income that the customers pay him). In this case, if the chef felt strongly that the dish should not be served as ordered, the waiter should have imediately informed the diner of such and offered to expedite another selection from the menu. Thu Sep 06 16:12:21 -0700 2001 1547892 0 Ruth Lafler 1 1547918 There is a well known chef here in DC named Carol Greenwood who is notorious for abusing customers who question anything that is placed in front of them. She is now on, I believe, her third restaurant. Somehow her talents in the kitchen, which apparently are quite good but far from the best in DC, enable her to keep getting money to open new joints despite the large amounts of negative publicity she attracts. Thu Sep 06 12:09:00 -0700 2001 1547865 0 Bob W. 1 1547929 They should have cooked the dish to your specifications - after all, what if you had a medical reason for not wanting to eat rare meat? - but they should not be required to guarantee that the finish product will be tasty. I've seen statements on the menu at nicer steakhouses that they will cook the meat to your liking but will not guarantee it will taste good if you request it well done. Thu Sep 06 13:12:58 -0700 2001 1547865 0 Julie 1 1547960 IMHO, the chef is totally within rights to refuse to provide the diner with a substitute for part of his or her "creation," i.e., "I'd like that with kidney instead of the raspberries." However, doneness is always your call, not his or hers -- even if you don't specify & the piece is underdone. As eater and payer, if the eatee refuses your request, you are entering walk-out-on-the-check land. Thu Sep 06 16:34:45 -0700 2001 1547865 0 Mr Grub 1 1548003 For a slightly different take on the question try the link below for September 7. Link: http://www.ucomics.com/inthebleachers Fri Sep 07 11:39:04 -0700 2001 1547865 0 Mike Kilgore 1 1548469 i'm kind of two sided on this issue, but it should have been fixed right the first time not to the chef's taste since he/she isn't eating the dish. Thu Sep 20 22:56:38 -0700 2001 1547865 0 kim 2 1549006 Look, you paid for the meal. You didn't get the meal like you wanted it. You requested it redone several times and it still came back not to your liking. I would write your local paper/news station and let them know what you went through. Ryan Frazier Tue Oct 02 18:00:24 -0700 2001 1548469 0 Ryan Frazier