May 20, 2005
FOUR FOR FRIDAY
Q1: How do you feel about television, newspaper, magazine, or web site news reports that rely wholly or in part on 'unnamed' sources?
Q2: Do you think there should be government-mandated drug-testing for anyone who plays sports professionally?
Q3: When you prepare to eat a hamburger or a sandwich, do you prefer to cut the burger or sandwich in half before eating it, or are you okay eating it whole?
Q4: Restaurants are notorious for charging a 15-18% gratuity on groups of eight or more. Are you in favor of this practice or would you prefer to tip the wait staff yourself based on how you feel they handled your table/group?
Posted by Mikal at May 20, 2005 12:04 AM
| TrackBack
1. I feel that the media should be allowed to keep the sources unnamed. As a consumer, I'd prefer to have an unnamed source supported by a named source.
2. I think this if for the leagues to handle. If the Feds get into the drug testing business for professional sports, who's to say that they won't be doing the same for professional accountants tomorrow? The leagues, however, have been fairly unresponsive about the drug issue. How many Daryl Strawberries or Michael Irvings do we need? How many Bary Bonds and Steve Coursons do we need? None. They are a blight on the game, and they send the wrong message to kids. Some 3 percent of high school atheletes have admitted to using steroids to enhance performance (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/preps/2005-05-04-hs-steroids-cover_x.htm). That is, in part, attributable to professional atheletes using said drugs. Kids just see that as the only way to excel in their chosen sport.
2. I eat it whole. Sometimes I like the hamburger halfed at a restautant.
4. I'm fine with it. The waitstaff can become unduly burdened by such a large group. It's also a safety net for the waitstaff that almost never make minimum wage, and have to make up the difference in tips. Additionally, this is the fault of some groups of assholes that walked away without tipping. So...blame the irresponsible diners of the past, not the restaurant. And...hell, in Europe, most restaurants will charge gratuity for any sized group. At least we still have the choice.
1. I would put more merit into reports that have cited sources but I do understand that there are times that it is better to leave to source unnamed.
2. No.
3. I can eat it whole--usually because I'm too lazy to cut it in half.
4. Personally, I'd rather tip depending on the service.
1. Unamed sources are OK.
2. Absolutley not. This needs to be handeled by hte leagues. If the government gets permission to radomly test professional sports players, whats next. Doctors, teachers, acquisition editors?
3. I usually eat it whole, unless it is unusually messy.
4. I would prefer they not automatically charge it. I know I would probably tip 20% even if the service was average. I have never been a server but can imagine that is a job I would not want. I have been part of a large group and am sure that makes it worse. I am sure the resteraunts do this to be sure the servers don't get stiffed on tip moeny.
Q1) Unnamed sources are fine. We need to protect whistle-blowers and people watching out for each other.
Q2) No, or only if every member of Congress agrees to be randomly tested, too.
Q3) Doesn't matter since I'll just make a mess of it either way.
Q4) Yes, because as a former server I can attest that groups are your cheapest customers and tippers. They want 10 entrees all at the same time, and want 10 checks. If it's a Sunday-after-church-group, that imposed gratuity might be the only one you'll get.
1. I never give it much thought. But an "unamed source" probably means they made it up. It's all just sensationalism.
2. No. And if they do it for sports they should do it for other people who work in the public eye, like movie actors.
3. I eat veggie burgers, and like to eat them whole. Sandwiches I will cut on a diagonal, but not always.
4. I think they do that to ensure the waiter gets tipped. But I'd rather make my own decision about what to give. I'm a good tipper.
1. Generally I give more credit to a named source, but I do understand that ther are times when the source may not wish to be named, especially for safety reasons.
2.Once again our government is using a dog and pony show like drugs in professional sports to distract us from the fact that they're a pack of completely ineffectual bumblers on any matter that's really important. Professional sports are private businesses. They have their own govering bodies to make rules for their members and employees. Let them deal with the problem or not as they see fit.
3. Whole, unless it's particualrly large or messy.
4. Personally, I'd rather tip based on how they handled the group. I understand why they do it though, since large groups are notorious for shortchanging the wait staff. After that experience at Binkleys, I don't think that I'd have a problem complaining to management and getting it reduced or dropped anymore.
1. Unnamed sources are okay, but be prepared for the consequences if you can't verify what's been said. In other words - back it up.
2. Shouldn't be government mandated. Let the leagues decide.
3. Whole is preferred, but cut is okay, I guess.
4. Kind of a stupid idea. I think it should be left to the customers. My experience is if they know they are going to get tipped, the service usually isn't quite as good. Your mileage may vary, though.
Post a Comment:
|
