Worst Restaurant Mistake You're Made
I was reading the "dumped because of food" thread and started thinking about my worst ever restaurant mistake.
I was with a group of urban friends in Chicago. We were in a club which was very noisy. The hostess told me that we'd be going to an Italian tapas restaurant after the party.
PAUSE . . .
I'm from a small Southern town, and we don't even have an Italian restaurant (athough I cook Italian and also have been to Italy and loved the food). The term, therefore, was not familiar, and with the noise level, I understood that we were going to a "topless" Italian restaurant.
I'm a sport though, so I said, "Well, I've never been to a topless restaurant, but sounds good to me."
I'm thinking (to myself) that I'm not going to tell my Mom about that part of the trip. She wasn't too keen on this trip to the city to meet online co-workers to start with.
The hostess is fabulous. Although she almost choked on her martini, she smiled and explained that it wasn't topless but tapas and just homestyle Italian.
I would expect that the story still gets told about me thinking they scheduled us a jaunt to a topless restaurant. But, I didn't make the "do not hang out with" list. They like my work and think I'm funny. They may still be trying to find a topless restaurant, so I'll get a chance to go.
CyndiA
Oct 31, 2009 01:05PM
You could nicely tell her that tapas are Spanish snacks (small plates of food) and that's why you thought it must be topless (since it was Italian)...or perhaps you could pretend that you thought "topless" meant it was an outdoor setting?
Permalink | Reply
LOL. I should have tried that. But, I'm one of those folks where it's written all over my face. I never could get by with fibbing.
Permalink | Reply
True story. I worked overseas for several years in the Middle East and traveled extensively. I was in the Greek Islands and ended up eating with a group of mostly Scottish travelers in a very noisy restaurant on Mykonos. I asked the very lovely Scottish lass I was sitting near if they ever ate hedgehogs in Scotland (being somewhat inebriated by that point). Somehow, she thought I asked her if Scottish girls liked to give head jobs. We probably conversed for a good 15 minutes with me thinking we were talking the prickly little animals and her thinking we were discussing those toublesome little pric... err - never mind. Suffice it to say that we both laughed until various fluids ran out of our noses after we discovered the "misunderstanding." In fact the whole table was pretty much knotted up with laughter. I put it down to the very thick (but charming) burr she spoke with, not to downplay the copious amount of ouzo that had been consumed as a major contributing factor.
Permalink | Reply
ROF. That's a good one. Would love to here that dialoge.
Permalink | Reply
My experience was the opposite. In 1981, I was invited to join a "dining party group" in New York City. For my first "meet-up," I was asked to bring an appetizer.
I don't even now recall exactly what I brought -- it was probably melon with prosciutto or an assortment of cheeses.
To make a long story short, let's just say that I didn't feel like being "dessert" for some of those assembled.
My most consistent mistake regarding restaurants is taking people who keep Kosher to restaurants that specialize in trayf (non-Kosher foods).
Three different couples got "caught" in restaurants with us -- fully four of the six people refused to eat a single thing on the menu -- it's very awkward having to leave one restaurant and go to another.
I'm not going to blame my Kosher friends. As the host, it's *my* responsibility to make sure that all of my guests will be comfortable. Deep in my heart, however, it strikes me as funny that a couple with dietary concerns that I don't share wouldn't at least consult the website of the restaurant to which they're invited. It's not like these folks aren't familiar with the restaurants -- and they're not from out-of-town.
Permalink | Reply
shaogo, you cannot leave us with JUST this: """To make a long story short, let's just say that I didn't feel like being "dessert" for some of those assembled.'''''
~~~~~~~~
hey, make the long story long already! ;-).
Permalink | Reply
I second. I'm not sure if we are talking sexual innuendo or vampires here...
Permalink | Reply
Alright, alkapal and Mattkn, you *want* lurid details, you'll *get* lurid details:
This "dining party group" was a swingers' organization. Suffice it to say that the youngest member had 10-15 years on me, and many were far older.
I believe I left after the main course, and before the dessert. At that time there were already one or two couples in various states of undress, doing their "thing" on the living-room furniture. The dinner party raged on in the dining room, as if what was going on in the living room was perfectly normal! Not me, thanks.
Permalink | Reply
Wait a minute. I have to know more. Are you talking about two separate incidents or was this a group of observant, kosher-keeping swingers?
Permalink | Reply
Obviously two different events since, in the case of the swingers incident, everyone was asked to bring food for the "dining" portion of the evening. The kosher folks were out at dinner in a (actually two) restaurant(s). Or, were you joking?
Permalink | Reply
I'm fundamentally a bad person.
Permalink | Reply
Why "Obviously"? Dan Savage (syndicated sex writer) had chapter in one of his books about his dinner with an Orthodox couple who were also swingers.
It takes all kinds.
Permalink | Reply
The "obviously" had nothing to do with being Orthodox. It had to do with the fact that you don't ask people to bring food (potluck) to a restaurant, which is what was done with the swingers party. The Orthodox folks went out to dinner - so ergo, they couldn't have been the "swingers" (who asked our intrepid poster to bring food) in the story.
Permalink | Reply
d'uh.
Permalink | Reply
I know a few stories :)
Permalink | Reply
Two totally separate incidents. Although a group of observant, Kosher-keeping swingers would make for a great short story.
Permalink | Reply
That's kind of a relief, but I'm not sure why...
Permalink | Reply
I can't help wondering the same thing. Also, if they were the same group, did they eat the prosciutto?
Permalink | Reply
shaogo - you now have my full attention.
Permalink | Reply
C'mon, how close can you be to these "friends" if you do not know they are kosher. Big of you not to "blame" them. Even the thought seems...
Permalink | Reply
j,
I have many friends who keep Kosher at home, but are not as strict when out......especially when Chinese Restaurants are considered.
Permalink | Reply
that's a great point. some of jfood relatives were that way. now i am going over to the couch and kick jfood for dumbness
Permalink | Reply
"Deep in my heart, however, it strikes me as funny that a couple with dietary concerns that I don't share wouldn't at least consult the website of the restaurant to which they're invited".
Why would you invite 'friends' who keep kosher to a restaurant that 'specialize in trayf'?
Wouldn't it be smarter to have the conversation with them before you make the reservations? Regardless of whether or not they follow their dietary laws outside the home or not is not relevant to the situation you're talking about and, quite frankly, none of anyone else's business. You mention 'consistent mistake' so it appears it's happened more than once.
Permalink | Reply
Suffice it to say I wasn't, apparently, friendly enough with these people to know that they keep Kosher. I don't know why it just never came up.
In all three cases that I can think of, it was the first time I'd invited them out to dinner, and the first time I'd *dined* with them, period (went to a cocktail party at one couple's house but nobody mentioned the hors d'oeuvres were Kosher).
It didn't occur to me to ask people that I'm dining out with if they keep Kosher or not; I just assumed that information would be volunteered, especially if they're unfamiliar with our destination restaurant.
You say that their following of dietary laws is "none of anyone else's business." It *became* my business when I had to tell the staff of the restaurant that I'd reserved at that we wouldn't be eating dinner. It was my business to gracefully exit one place and re-start the evening at another restaurant -- by the time we started eating it was 10:30 at night.
It occurred to me that perhaps none of these people mentioned anything about the Kosher thing because they didn't want to sound fussy and were *used to* the trials and tribulations of ordering in a non-Kosher restaurant.
Permalink | Reply
It seems hard to understand why none of the folks who kept kosher never volunteered that information to you, especially considering that you were choosing the restaurant for your dinner. And even more unusual is the fact that, despite knowing where you had picked for dinner in advance (I'm assuming they knew the fact of where you were all going) not one of them even bothered to check in advance with the restaurant in question to see if it was an appropriate venue for their dietary restrictions. Weird all the way around.
Permalink | Reply
One little bit of information that'll hopefully decrease the "weird" factor: many, many people, Jews and non-Jews, listen to my New York accent and for some reason *assume* I'm Jewish. Lots of people also think my last name is Jewish-sounding... it's actually German. I was raised a Lutheran and am now a Buddhist.
So what I'm saying is that perhaps these folks (I'll repeat it, we didn't know them that well and these were first-time-dining-together experiences) -- perhaps they *assumed* I'm Jewish and trusted my choices.
Servorg, the other explanation is that I'm just a magnet for "weird." My good friends will tell you, I must have a friendly face or something; when out at bars, if there's a particularly strange person hanging out in the bar, they will walk right past my friends but then go to me and immediately try to engage me in conversation.
But really -- regarding my guests' failure to check up on the venue -- if I'd gotten *any* inkling at all that not only would these folks fail to check, but would additionally report that they couldn't eat anything and that we'd have to *change restaurants,* I'd probably not have invited them out in the first place.
Permalink | Reply
If you live in New York and know a lot of Jewish people, surely you know that just because someone is Jewish doesn't mean that they follow kosher dietary laws.
Permalink | Reply
Just out of curiosity- did you ever invite them again?
Permalink | Reply
You say that their following of dietary laws is "none of anyone else's business". It 'became' my business when I had to tell the staff of the restaurant that I'd reserved at that we wouldn't be eating dinner"
I was referring to the personal choices, of people who keep kosher at home, whether they eat at nonkosher restaurants or not....
Regardless your experience with these people was ridiculous, to say the least.
Couldn't they have found a simple salad, a vegetable or something? Anything?
Permalink | Reply
"It occurred to me that perhaps none of these people mentioned anything about the Kosher thing because they didn't want ot sound fussy and were "used to" the trials and tribulations of ordering in a non-kosher restaurant"
A person, who is strictly observant of kosher laws, knows where kosher restaurants are and will only eat at them. It appears these people knew the restaurant wasn't kosher and knew they could find something to eat that would be within their personal limits ie; fish, salad, vegetables etc. I can't think of one restaurant that doesn't have at least one of these items on the menu.
Permalink | Reply
L
FYI - there are some observants who will not eat anything consumed from a kitchen that is not kosher. a vegetarian dish prepared in the same pan that just cooked a pork chop is not kosher to some.
so there may have been no options
Permalink | Reply
I was at a business lunch with a Jewish business associated who wouldn't eat anything but fruit because of the concern that it might touch the grill that has touched non-kosher meat.
Permalink | Reply
"FYI-there are some observants who will not eat anything consumed from a kitchen that is not kosher. a vegetarian dish prepared in the same pan that just cooked a pork chop is not kosher to some"
A vegetarian dish prepared in the same pan with ANY meat dish, not just pork, is not kosher. I'm very aware of dietary laws and I'm saying that the people wouldn't have gone near the restaurant in the first place if they were strictly observant. They could have asked for fish to be placed in foil and cooked, vegetables the same way....etc.
Permalink | Reply
L
You did say "Couldn't they have found a simple salad, a vegetable or something? Anything?"
Just trying to keep the information moving forward.
Permalink | Reply
I understand about the veg-dish-in-the-pork-chop-pan, but jfood- wouldn't you tell somebody that was inviting you out to dinner if you were strictly kosher? I'd rather the poor fellow was relieved of his hosting duties rather than to watch helplessly while all his guests refused to order.
Permalink | Reply
unless this was a first time get-together jfood would assume that the host would know of significant dietary restriction, like kosher, and the possibility of minor ones like shellfish or nuts.
It may be that jfood is more sensitive to this topic with a nut allergy, but not knwong someone is kosher strikes me as strange. Now the kosher in-home, not kosher out-home is the big question on these discussions.
Permalink | Reply
The other thing is that there is Kosher ... and then there is Kosher. Some people keep a Kosher kitchen. Others live "kosher-style" without pork and/or shellfish or won't mix milk and meat. Still others keep a strictly Kosher body. The Cantor at my synagogue growing up kept Kosher at home, but could occasionally be spotted enjoying ribs at the local BBQ joint.
So even if you know that friends follow dietary laws, it doesn't necessarily give you a clue as to what or where they will or will not eat.
Permalink | Reply
Which brings us back around to the point I made above. How could it be that not one of these folks would check ahead of time with the chosen restaurant to determine if it would meet their needs? I don't get that at all.
Permalink | Reply
The one time I took an out-of-town Orthodox Jewish guest to dinner, it not only had to be a kosher restaurant, she had to approve the restaurant choice beforehand to make sure that it was kosher ENOUGH to meet her requirements. She wouldn't eat anything unless it was from a kosher kitchen, or produced in a kosher factory and sealed in a properly-approved package. It's not as simple as 'don't mix milk and meat'...
Permalink | Reply
That makes perfect sense. I would have to assume that all strictly kosher individuals know the difficulty of finding a restaurant that follows the religious dietary law they observe. I question whether the folks that shaogo posts about above were really kosher, or if they were, whether they were making him jump through hoops for some reason? Just really, really unusual that this whole subject never came up before they all showed up at the first restaurant. Just one more unexplained mystery on the Internet I suppose.
Permalink | Reply
I grew up in the NW and spent my adult years in the SF Bay Area, and I don't believe I've EVER met anyone who keeps kosher. There are very few Jewish delis/restaurants around here, and I doubt they would meet the strictest standards, so shaogo's predicament would be a highly unusual, even bizarre, occurrence in these parts.
Permalink | Reply
The NW and the SF Bay Area both have communities that are strictly observant.
Neither area is like NY or LA....where delis, butchers, etc. are popular and competitive.
The people in those areas many times order their meat and other products (kosher) from places they know in NY or LA.
Plus...many grocers supply their stores with strictly kosher products because they know they have the clientele to sell them to.
The amount of people in those areas, who keep kosher, may not be large compared to NY or LA but they're there so to say shaogo's predicament would be 'highly unusual, even bizarre', isn't quite accurate.
Permalink | Reply
"fully four of the six people refused to eat a single thing on the menu -- it's very awkward having to leave one restaurant and go to another."
--- To have folks unexpectedly pop up with a strict kosher requirement after sitting down at a restaurant that can't accommodate their needs -- would be "highly unusual, even bizarre". Outside of NY and LA, it just wouldn't happen that way.
Permalink | Reply
I was so embarressed the other night. i went to a very nice restautant. I do not eat meat, I looked at the menu and I saw a fresh tomato pasta with garlic, basil and mozz. you could add shrimp or I think chicken. I looked at the wrong name on the menu but said, "I'll have it with shrimp". When my meal came it was pasta with a red sauce, broccoli rabe and sausage. The waitress probably could've said, "Oh, don't you mean this dish....." but anyway... I could not eat it. They took it back and gave me another one no charge. I did feel terrible but grateful that they were so nice.
Permalink | Reply
What?
Permalink | Reply
I know, compared to the Kosher thing I sound pretty boring!
Permalink | Reply
Shrimp is not meat?
Permalink | Reply
Some people do not eat land animal but are perfectly ok eating critters who swim.
Permalink | Reply
Thus the designation of "pescetarian". I know several folks, including my aunt, who are pescetarian. When someone for whom I may be cooking tells me they are vegetarian, I ask "Vegan, ovo-lacto, or pescetarian?" Some folks tell me they don't eat anything with a face, so I guess they do clams but not other fish??
Permalink | Reply
Which makes absolutely no sense, but hey, YMMV.
Permalink | Reply
<Which makes absolutely no sense, but hey, YMMV.>
It makes perfect sense if the person likes the taste of fish & does not like the taste of land animals. I can tell you that at least one such person exists, and she's typing at you right now.
Permalink | Reply
I meant that it makes no sense for someone to say he/she doesn't eat meat, only to later say he/she eats fish. I mean, you don't call yourself a vegetarian, do you?
Permalink | Reply
As I said above, I believe the correct term is pescetarian. As for me, I'm an omnivore!
Permalink | Reply
I know what a pescetarian is, thanks. ;)
I was just bothered by Alicia's post, where she says, "I do not eat meat..." and proceeds to order shrimp.
Permalink | Reply
Hi! I guess I should clear that up. I was a vegetarian (ate no chix, fish, or red meat, did eat cheese and eggs) for about 13 years. I recently started eating some fish, mainly because it is good for you. I am still getting used to not being a total vegetarian, and I guess I have not adjusted my "label'. I understand how you might feel that shrimp is meat, but I think when people say "meat" they mean red meat. There are so many people that say, "I don't eat meat, I just eat chicken and fish" There are people that don't eat only red meat and consider themselves vegetarians. It is one of those subjects you could go on and on about.
Permalink | Reply
"There are people that don't eat only red meat and consider themselves vegetarians."
They can consider themselves whatever they'd like, but they're not vegetarians. ;)
Permalink | Reply
I most definately agree with you. It was always strange to me when
I told people I was a vegetarian and they would say that.
Permalink | Reply
Not that strange, apparently: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/664905
Permalink | Reply
Thank you, that was a great post with many interesting and fair comments. I will comment on the people who call themselves vegetarans who eat chicken and fish. I honestly feel they probably never researched what a vegetarian really is.
Permalink | Reply
There's nothing I could call myself that someone (perhaps right here on this thread!) wouldn't object to. If I call myself a vegetarian, I'm accused of being nonsensical. If I call myself a non-carnivore, I get "shrimp is not meat?" (see above). Although if fish really were a kind of meat, it wouldn't have its own menu category.
Now, pescetarian, in addition to being an unattractive, clumsy word, suggests that I don't also eat eggs and dairy, which I do. Which leaves me with lacto-ovo-pescetarian, a hideous mouthful that makes pescetarian look pretty. So I just go about my business, eating what I eat.
Permalink | Reply
I've always thought pescetarians ate dairy/eggs.
Permalink | Reply
I can't say, since I haven't met all of them. But even people who call themselves omnivores, aren't. Unless they eat grass, acorns, and other people. That's the problem with generalizations. They're so damn general.
Permalink | Reply
I can't understand all this debate about the terms, isn't it simple:
Vegan: no animals or animal by-products so no dairy or eggs, etc.
Vegetarian: no animals, dairy, eggs etc. are OK
Pescatarian: no mammals or birds, but fish
Omnivore: able to eat anything, but doesn't mean they do. So they are able to digest other people. And aren't cereals grasses? And acorns were an important part of Native American's diets and are still eaten in Korea.
Permalink | Reply
I admire your desire for clarity - heck, I share it. And I agree with your nesting doll definitions, in theory. But in practice, those terms don't cover the full range of -vores. What do you call someone who eats poultry but no beef? mollusks but no fin fish (you know, the ol' "no face" rule)? These people exist.
Your definition of omnivore is altogether wrong, though. It doesn't mean CAN eat anything, it means DOES eat anything. I CAN eat beef - I've got incisors and molars and a regular human digestive tract - I just don't.
Permalink | Reply
I would say in practice those fussy eaters don't really deserve labels.
I respect Vegans and Vegitarians because their food choice is based on sound principles, but I am afraid I can't really respect someone who eats one sentinant creature but not another i.e. poultry vs beef (I am open to persuasion on the pescatarian). OK I can respect someone who doesn't like the taste/texture of a food, but it doesn't deserve a label (unless it is a religous belief). To label them tends to undermine the valid principles of the non-meat eater (not that I am one).
In hindsight my definition of Omnivore was imprecise, as a poor scientist I used it in a technical way. To be correct it should be herbivore, carnivore, omnivore as it is a definition based on function rather than belief or habit. However, it is a fact that all humans are omnivores, even if they choose not to eat meat.
Permalink | Reply
see i can't even draw the line there. life subsists on life. we ingest very little that is mineral, as opposed to organic. if a cow is sacred, then why isn't a potato? so i just eat it all.
besides when you eat a chicken you are transforming it into a human, thus taking off thousands of cycles from the karmic wheel of rebirth.
Permalink | Reply
<I respect Vegans and Vegitarians because their food choice is based on sound principles...I can respect someone who doesn't like the taste/texture of a food, but it doesn't deserve a label (unless it is a religous belief).>
And who gets to decide which principles are sound? Or which religious beliefs are worthy of respect? You only get to make the rules for you, I'm afraid.
And yes, you've now provided the dictionary definition of omnivore, although it is not the definition in use on this thread. If it were, then those people calling themselves vegetarians are lying, because they are people, and thus, they are omnivores. (Of course, I only presume they're people - for all I know, they could be llamas. I could be a llama, myself, for all YOU know. And won't you feel silly when you find out you've been arguing semantics with a llama.)
Permalink | Reply
people are all omnivores. some of them choose to eat a vegetarian diet
Permalink | Reply
As has been pointed out elsewhere, scientifically speaking that's absolutely correct, but the term is used differently in colloquial speech. Though I suppose to be pedantic we could refer to vegetarians as non-practicing omnivores. ;-)
I might be more inclined to vegetarianism myself if I had an extra stomach. Let me ruminate on that a bit...
Permalink | Reply
"Though I suppose to be pedantic we could refer to vegetarians as non-practicing omnivores".
Humans are omnivores even though many decide to not eat meat. Lions are carnivores. Deer are herbivores. It doesn't matter what any of us/they eat we're still defined as such.
It's the tooth/jaw structure that differentiates and classifies.
Permalink | Reply
People have lots of reasons for being vegetarians. Not all of them are religious or moral. And we all know "vegetarians" who just don't eat red meat but are ok with poultry or those who only eat fish or seafood (an earlier poster who called him/herself a vegetarian but would order shrimp). Ben Franklin would not eat flesh of any kind. Not better or worse, but just another set of rules.
And then there are those folks who go into a high end restaurant and ask for a vegan tasting menu, but who are ok with eating the delicious butter-laden dessert.
We humans do make up the rules. Someone made up all those religious rules and the moral rules. And you and I make up what rules we are going to follow or not follow regarding our own diet. I guess that's what makes it interesting.
Permalink | Reply
i was interested to read that ben franklin was a vegetarian, but looked it up. this refutes that information: http://www.udel.edu/PR/UDaily/2005/ma...
Permalink | Reply
I guess that makes me a nonoffalitarian- except for chicken gizzards and menudo, which makes me a poseur?
Permalink | Reply
"But even people who call themselves omnivores, aren't".
All humans are omnivores...they may be vegetarians but they're still omnivores.
Permalink | Reply
Scroll down just a tad. I make a distinction between the dictionary definition of omnivore (you are correct!), and the common usage definition (you are less correct!). You've no doubt observed that many people on Chowhound (and elsewhere) have changed the game a bit: omnivores eat pretty much whatever's put in front of them; vegetarians eschew the flesh of animals. But we're always talking about humans. When a participant on these here boards refers to herself as an omnivore, she isn't just sayin' she's a regular human. She's telling you she's willing to eat most anything.
Permalink | Reply
"omnivores eat pretty much whatever's put in front of them; vegetarians eschew the flesh of animals".
A human being can be on a liquid diet, not eat meat, eat meat, only eat vegetables, eat only fruit, eat leaves, eat grass, eat whatever they want and they're still omnivores.
A human being who is avegetarian is an omnivore.
Permalink | Reply
I see that you're determined to ignore that "omnivore" has a colloquial meaning in addition to its dictionary definition. So I'll stop trying to show you that it does.
Permalink | Reply
Don't stop now! Apparently you and latindancer have only scratched the surface of this issue. Humans are evidently actually classified as frugivores and faunivores - in some abstruse combination - and the parameters of that combination are still being battled over in the halls of academia.... ;-D>
Permalink | Reply
<Don't stop now!>
But I'm running out of ways to say the same thing over and over again! I looked up "frugivore" and was very disappointed to learn that it doesn't mean "buys food on sale."
Permalink | Reply
I always thought "buys food on sale" was a "fruglevore" - but I digress. Take a look at this link (and go to the home page too if you have the time) to see some additional info on this subject: http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/c...
Permalink | Reply
Thanks! Very interesting. I dove into that and nearly drowned (note to self: do not try to figure out what "anti-logarithmic transformation" means if you already have a headache). What I came away with was the understanding that I was meant to subsist on a diet of wormy peaches. Also that fruitarians are nutty (I actually knew this already).
Then I wandered over to the humor section and got sidetracked thinking about how much the views satirized here:
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/...
remind me of The Secret and Barbara Ehrenreich's new book, Bright-Sided.
Very cool site, overall.
Permalink | Reply
It is very interesting to see what turns up at times when you google a single term (we can't all do our own original research from scratch like some apparently do... ;-D> ).
Permalink | Reply
Interesting indeed. I guess that's what people study when they say they're taking a gut course!
Permalink | Reply
All living creatures past/present are classifed into groups. These groups are determined and defined by jaw teeth formations and structure and a host of other variables.
I'm not 'determined' to do anything.
It's fact.
I don't get my facts, in this regard, from a dictionary.
Permalink | Reply
....or the internet or by googling.
Permalink | Reply
latindancer, you're absolutely right, taxonomically speaking. What you don't seem to accept is that there is a second, colloquial definition of omnivore that differs from the scientific one.
You don't need to use the word in this informal sense to refer to people who actually eat meat (not just have the capability to do so) if you don't want to, but most people do use it that way and arguing that they're wrong is fruitless (also meatless).
Permalink | Reply
"""They may still be trying to find a topless restaurant, so I'll get a chance to go.""""
...or you could just take off your top!
Permalink | Reply
Some years ago there was a topless donut shop in Fort Lauderdale. I don't know if it lasted long enough to become a popular cop hangout.
Permalink | Reply
I'll let you know if they round me one up, but my own shirt stays on at restaurants (-:
Permalink | Reply
There is a topless truck stop in Florida ! Gives a whole new meaning if you want milk with your coffee!
Permalink | Reply
Forget Florida - there is a topless coffee shop in Maine: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/27/topl...
I can't help but think that the chill northern air would add a certain extra...frisson.
Permalink | Reply
This place in Vassalboro, ME burned down a few months ago due to a suspicious fire.
Permalink | Reply
Gives whole new meaning to adding a certain extra ...frisson....well back to Florida!
Permalink | Reply
But wait - it's back! http://www.boston.com/news/local/main...
Permalink | Reply
DH and I went to one of our favorite restaurants, where they have an incentive program - spend so much, accumulate $$ towards future meals. We had a great dinner and plenty to drink, so my mind was a little fuzzy when the check came. We used $25 in incentive money that night, but I had the presence of mind to remind DH to tip on pre-incentive bill. Then we proceeded to pay in cash the full pre-incentive amount plus the $40 tip (DH is a way big tipper, even more so after a few drinks). So the server actually received a $65 tip on a $150 dinner for two. And no, no one said anything at the time, because our MO is to hand the check back to the server on our way out. But like I said, it's a favorite, and we're regulars, so next time we go in, the server brings it to our attention (which I had realized the next morning - a hey, what exactly happened with the check last night? moment). Since she was so honest, we told her just to keep it, because she's our favorite server. I think we got comped some drinks or something that next time, but we surely weren't looking for it. I went easy on the cocktails for a while after that!
Permalink | Reply
I can relate to the "topless" thing. I went to a fabulous tapas place a couple of years ago and was raving to my coworkers, and every one of them thought I'd said "topless" and gave me the gaping mouths as a result...... until I clarified. None of them had heard of it..... *sigh*
Years ago I asserted my (supposed) newfound knowledge of food to advise a waitress that my creme caramel was not cooked properly as it was not crisp on top.
...... I thought it was creme brulee......
Permalink | Reply
Are you Southern by chance? I am. So, the Chicago pronunciation of tapas did sound like how "topless" might be said here.
It did catch me by surprise as the hostess is rather conservative by nature. I was thinking, "Hum. I can't imagine ____ taking me to a topless place." But, hey, you never know I guess.
I think they all thougt I was a good sport as I would not make the top 10 list for your buddy you might take to a topless place. Never been to one. But, I do like Italian food (-: So, I thought I'd just try to look at the food.
It was wonderful tapas I might add. And, we had a male server who had on a crisp white shirt and a tie.
Permalink | Reply
No, originally from Newfoundland, Canada, but don't live there now. I do have an accent though, so that might have something to do with it. Still, the people i'd spoken to did'nt know what tapas was either even after I corrected them.
Permalink | Reply
tapas *does* sound like topless. i don't see how accents play into it -- except for correct spanish pronunciation.
in spanish, it's not "tap-as", it's "tah-pas."
Permalink | Reply
I think the hostess used the Spanish pronunciation then. That sounds very much like Southern "topless." We do funny things with vowels in these parts. You should hear how some of the Mexican dishes are said around here. Oh my. Wonder we ever get anything close to what we ordered.
Permalink | Reply
Arguably the former pronunciation could also lead to embarassment if misunderstood. :P
Permalink | Reply
I ate at "Fish on Fire", Beltline Rd., Dallas, TX.
Permalink | Reply
Re topless/tapas: a friend commented on this to me the other day (unrelated to this discussion) - he and his family were to celebrate his wife's birthday at a tapas restaurant in SF. After dining there he suggested someone should open a topless tapas restaurant...featuring bodacious boquerones etc...
Permalink | Reply
Would opening a Japanese resto/bar with an alcoholic manager and ethically challenged head chef as partners count?
Permalink | Reply
we commiserate with you, scrapironchef.
Permalink | Reply
OK, I was very young, but thought I was quite cosmopolitan. I was on my honeymoon, sitting down at an elegant but traditional New England clambake. For the first course, we were served a bowl of steamed clams, with separate cups of hot water. I proceeded to dump my portion of the clams into my bowl of hot water; I added salt, pepper and oysterettes, which were also on the table. My groom just looked puzzled and asked me what I was doing. I proudly and confidently told him this was the soup, and we were supposed to make our own clam chowder. He didn't agree, and people around us were laughing at me, but I continued to make my own soup. A few minutes later our waiter arrived back, with the real clam chowder and gently informed me the cup of hot water was there so we could wash the clams off before eating them. I was pretty mortified and my groom could not stop laughing.
Permalink | Reply
Love it!
Permalink | Reply
Bring your groom to MN and make him eat some cheese curds and then a Jucy Lucy.
Permalink | Reply
In the tough economy we're in, a topless Italian restaurant sounds like a brilliant marketing ploy.
Permalink | Reply
The fact that there are no topless tapas restaurants in America does not bode well for the once fable Yankee ingenuity.
Permalink | Reply
Featuring bodacious boquerones among other tasty treats.
Permalink | Reply
It would have to be when I was in Paris as a grad student attending my first international conference. I spoke essentially no french, but my office mate with whom I was attending spoke french (I thought) pretty well. We went to a restaurant where (duh) the menu was completely in french. He pointed to one item on the menu and said "that's lamb". So I ordereded it. Well it was lamb-- lamb brain-- arriving looking EXACTLY like a whole brain, sitting on my plate. I did eat a few bites. Tasted sort of like firm fish as I recall.
Permalink | Reply
I had a similar Parisian experience, but with far less excuse. Mine was a just few years ago, when I was already a well-traveled international business specialist with fairly sophisticated tastes (lamb brains sounds pretty good, actually) and a comfortable command of basic French. I was having lunch with a local colleague and the saucissons Andouillettes on the menu caught my eye. Somehow I had it in my mind that these would be like New Orleans-style Andouille sausages. My dining companion tried to dissuade me, but I didn't listen.
What I was expecting was a plate of tasty garlic-flavored pork sausages. When I sliced one open, out poured a revolting mass of what looked (and smelled!) exactly like vomit. French Andouillettes, you see, are a loose-grind tripe sausage, and very much an acquired taste. I tried to eat them - really I did - but couldn't manage more than a couple of bites. I paid for two entrees that day, and learned a lesson in humility.
Permalink | Reply
Ha! at that same lamb-brain dinner *that's* what my office mate ordered! with the same reaction!
Permalink | Reply
i guess my order of "ochsenmausalat" thinking it was a "salad" seems pretty tame compared with the lamb's brain and andouillettes story.
i guess it was tongue, although "mau" isn't "tongue" in german (but "zunge").
Permalink | Reply
Maul is mouth (of an animal) - related to muzzle. Includes Zunge (and for your sake, I hope not much more in that Salat)!
Permalink | Reply
it was in a very large beer hall in central munich. i tried to give it away to the men next to mom and me. i said "tried," mind you. ha ha! then i drank my liter of beer.
(man, those women who carry six or so honkin' liters of beer in EACH HAND have some strength!). http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_SqhhJb_P3Kk...
Permalink | Reply
Does not sound overly appealing, but "there's no such thing as bad beer, just some beer tastes better than others", to quote my grandpa. At least you had your beer to see you through!
Permalink | Reply