Carrot Top

You're now an honorary member of the Small-Portions Club. Membership fees are waived. Just bring a cake to the next meeting.

Order what you want or don't order if you don't want to. Eat a little or eat a lot or don't eat. Smile and laugh a lot. If you feel like it. I do, but I've hated the few times in my life when someone (usually a guy) says "smile" to me as if I were a performing seal placed there to please. Makes me want to bite or growl or spit, instead. Life does go on, whatever happens. (Sorry if I didn't repeat the mantra right, it's been a downhill slide since they kicked me out of Bodhisatva school. )

Oh, yeah, Kate. Agreed. If the server seemed to be somewhat normal and not a total twit, I'd ask why no half salad, and if the response was "my manager" then I'd ask to speak (ah, "speak", sounds so "nice", dun't it now ) to the manager then I'd either charm said manager into changing said policy or alternately have a good laugh at management, probably making the server's day. Half a salad. It's not like the place would go out of business for selling half a salad once in a while, indeed good customer service brings in more customers. Half a cow, now - that might be pushing it. You'd need a cross-bow and a good saw. Half a salad, all you need is a willingness to please. I tend to frequent restaurants that will give me half-portions or who will serve entrees as apps. I don't mind paying a little extra for the privilege and I tip very well. I'm not a big person and don't have a huge appetite, so seeing a pile of food before me actually sort of sickens me to the idea of eating at all. And so many of these things do not travel home in a doggy bag too well. Maybe I should start a special interest group: Small-Portions Eaters Anonymous. Our motto would be: We pay for it so you don't have to.

This particular phrase struck me, in the original post. Seems to me that family love and tolerance needs to be an interactive thing. Margie states clearly that she *did* try to order something and had already been put through the wringer in some sense by the server who would not serve half a salad. These situations, to my mind, require Jack Nicholson at the scene to reprimand the server with the appropriate come-back like the one he used in "Easy Rider". Instead, Margie was reprimanded. Whose comfort level was increased here with love and care shown by family? Looks like it was the servers level of comfort, to me. If I had been at the table with my daughter and this situation had occured, I would want my daughter (or DIL) to be made comfortable, not the server. Utter nonsense, that they would not serve half a salad. If then, my family member had chosen not to order something, I'd move my chair closer to them, wrap my arm around the back of it, and give them lots of smiles while giving the server utterly nasty and hopefully imperious-looking stares every time they approached the table. * *(And honey, we'd have a blast. Probably, we'd start laughing so hard at the utter ridiculousness of the situation that tears would be rolling down our cheeks. ) This is how I deal with my family in general - how we deal with each other, really. Cocktail hour, man. ← Very traditional WASP thing to do, Megan. My small, far-flung family does that too. Even if the day starts with Brunch. Startling the amounts of alcohol some of them can consume while still seeming totally sober. (I always wish I'd see them go past that point of seeming totally sober, but it's never happened. Someone should do a socio-cultural study on this. ) And they still manage to get up at the crack of dawn to make others feel guilty about not getting to work before they do. Scary, really. In a vaguely impressive sort of way.

Oh. If I name-called any mythical person, I don't apologize. I still say that in mythical situations sometimes there are times when mythically, even professionals even more intelligent than Dr. Phil would tell the average person to put their foot down. Even within mythical families. MFK Fisher had a great line about the feelings at the average family dinner, and that line hints that often, they are not all filled with sweetness and light. Sometimes even sticking a smile on your face and bowing down to expectations does not make it all okay. You can smile and bow all you want, while being subtly stabbed by the expectations. One dinner, one lunch? Oh yes. Okay. But some people bow to much more, for years. Some women smile and say "It's okay" till their teeth hurt radiating with a pulse felt from their heart, from the smiles given while bowing to others who *are* about control. Not a pretty scene, no. And I am glad that Margy is not in it. But if she had been, I would have been glad to name-call even more to make my point. Now shall we start a thread called: "How civilized *are* we, anyway?"

Yeah, really. WTF. This deserves a thread of its own. Was the server just too . . . busy? At three o'clock in the afternoon to scrape half of a premade Cobb Salad off the plate and serve half? Or perhaps the chef was too elegant, accompished, and terrifying for the server to ask to make a smaller salad? Oops. Probably I mean the Salad Person at that station was too terrifying to make the request of. Or maybe, even, since I like this phrase, the server was a royal controlling bitch, too. Tuscon - the Wild Wild West. Snap on those holsters if you want to order anything different in a small quiet restaurant on those hot dry afternoons. (Hey - look. I even spelled the name of the place wrong. My bad. )

It's the strong opinions, that keep me reading, personally. If there was only pap to chew on why bother? Margy was brave to post her question - perhaps braver than she knew at first.

The problem inherent in communicating by posts on the internet is that often the posts can be mis-read. As you noted, about your original post. There's a lot of signals missing in this form of communication that are there in "real life" and also the communications are not clipped into a box that limits them in size due to time or form. In a mythical situation, it could be that someone who posted your original post could have been sitting down with, as I noted, "a royal contolling bitch". In that mythical situation, that person could have been the woman who made it very clear to you that your actions were, as you noted "unacceptable". In this mythical situation that would have been your MIL. You note that comments were made without people knowing the entire situation, but of course they could not know that unless you had provided that information . . .and of course nobody really knows what happened at any time between two people in any situation except those two people and even then sometimes the perception of what happened is different. Heh. I was one of the few actually defending you, Margy.

OMFG!!! And then what happened???? See, I have a MILzilla too and I'd still break bread with her. Because I belong the the cult...WWBD? ← If I join this cult can I too make as much money as B does for each bite taken?

And by the same token, it happens in life that you can get what you want and the other person can get what they want with a little thought, tact and consideration. ← Usually. And I am all for that. But not always, and then one must decide whether to eat it or not, to throw it back or not. And in those situations sometimes an alliance can be made (rather than a sickly endless ongoing submission to the power plays) by not accepting what is being thrown at you. For sometimes, strangely enough, those who like to throw things only respect those who can and will throw them back.

And it actually does happen in life sometimes that you can sit down to eat with someone who is a royal controlling bitch. MIL or not. "Older" than you or not.

The original post did not say excuses had not been made. It is possible that they were made and ignored. One would hope so, Megan. This is how it *should* be. But there are families that can dole out more pain than love, for varied reasons.

Margy does not sound like a rude person in general, to me, from this post. Nor does she sound really snotty. MIL does sound like she had a thing or two to say about how Margie is, though.

Yes, Cheesecake Factory and its ilk are giving 200% in one particular category at least: portion size (and probably fat content of the food, too). I have to say that I think most nutritional information that can be gleaned and used for informational purposes is gleaned fairly enough and in a good enough form to be of adequate use in these situations. That's another topic, perhaps. And I have to say, when I see (so many) people around who can not fit into their clothes and who have difficulties moving their bodies well without strain at the least physical exertion, the question does arise for me whether they really know what is good for them. Certainly anyone who is in this condition (which I do see lots and lots of at fast-food places and at chain restaurants) has more right than I do, to contemplate whether their personal state of being is a healthy one. The only reason I think of it at all is because the few times I've gained ten to fifteen pounds for whatever reason, above where I usually am, I feel like sh*t. So the question is in my mind whether others would feel like sh*t too, carrying around extra weight. I see nothing wrong with educating the public as to what they are eating. I think it is a fair thing to do and a good thing to do. Put in the form of something that could be read or not, it is not something forced upon anyone who does not want it.

Personally I am for the idea of qualified rudeness when the situation warrants it. Some situations do. And then, it is a beautiful thing.

I thought you were going to cite the "On top of spaghetti all covered with cheese, I lost my poor meatball when somebody sneezed. It rolled off the taaaaable and onto the floor and then my poor meeeeeeatball, it rolled out the door" song. I think this song deserves recognition as the historic reminder it was, to an entire generation of Americans, to love and to eat spaghetti and meatballs whenever possible.

It seems to me that if a corporation (which is what chain restaurants are) is able to provide its customers with an abundance of service and goods, above and beyond the expectations of its customers (which is what chains try to do, with big servings, comfort-taste "full"-feeling laden foods, easy access off the highway, quick service, standardization and consistency of offerings for high recognition level, supposedly clean accomodations, etc.) then that same corporation should be able to provide an abundance of information as to exactly what it is doing, if the general customer base has concerns over whatever issue is at hand. There is a high level of interest among the general public today, about the caloric content of foods. Why not be pro-active as a corporation and offer the information in the way most likely to succeed, for its customers, which would be a user-friendly way - not requiring research on a website that is on the computer at home, but information *right there* at the restaurant, available for perusal upon request, with a note on the bottom of the menus that this information is available if requested. Why not? Is there any reason why this should not be done, or a reason why it is not being done now? One of the good lessons I took away from life at a certain corporation ( a corporation often considered one of the "best" by those who measure these things) in terms of corporate culture and management, is that you should never just offer your "customer" one hundred percent. If they expect one hundred percent, offer them two hundred. If they expect two hundred, find a way to give them four hundred percent. Never stop, never quit, trying to please the customer beyond their expectations. That translates into excellence, and that translates into very happy customers. There is opportunity here, for these chains, in this way, to my mind. As long as they can find a way to be honest without being frightening at the same time.

All through this thread I keep wondering if maybe there wasn't some sort of underlying dynamic between MIL and DIL in the first place, a discomfort based on something or a history of power plays . . . that did, finally, come out in this example of ordering food or *not* ordering food. Not that I ever had that problem. I got along excellently with both my MIL's. It was their sons that eventually I could not stand.

Much quicker to make a sauce and serve it with meatballs than to do a long-simmered ragu with other meats as might have been more traditional, for sure. Those neat little packages of ground beef have been a perennial favorite of the homemaker. Time-saving. Inexpensive. I still know people who know how to cook basically only things made with "hamburger meat". ( ) You had me puzzled for a minute with that "M & S" thing, though. Phew. Reminder to myself: Don't flip letters while reading.

Though I can whole-heartedly agree with the notion of people being responsible for what they eat as individuals, and without undue interference, sometimes there are subtexts being played out in the acts of dining, particularly when dining out at chain restaurants where competition for the diner's dollar is paramount, and where marketing skills honed to strike the heart (perhaps in more ways than one, in the final analysis) are silently yet magnificently displayed. The appeals to "eat here" are made not upon quality or goodness, but rather upon a full-range of things that speak to the parts of us that want "more", "richer", "cheesier", "tastier". Is this wrong? Seems to me it is wrong in some ethical way, if our population is becoming more unhealthy because of it, because of burgeoning obesity and the health issues claimed by most authorities that go along with that. The mention of the ice-cream places reminds me of the few times I've been to one of these upscale emporiums of sweet sticky marble massaged creamy delight. The lines were long, and and the people were mostly all obese, to a proportion of thirty to maybe three who were not. At risk of being blasted for not being "fair" to the happily fat among us, I must say that to see a human being with feet swollen and pushing out the edges of their shoes, puffing from the exertion of walking twenty feet or so while carrying two ice cream cones the size of the Empire State building worries me. Maybe its not my place to worry. To each, their own ways, their own pleasures in life. But the fact is that if those portion sizes were not so widespread, so competitive, if the cheesey rich beefiness were not overflowing from the chain restaurants calling the names of those who can be struck to the core of their souls with a desire for this taste, this fullness, this "more"-ness, this bigness - it would be easier for many people to focus in on eating a different way if they chose to. Even from these brief posts on this topic, it is apparent that not everyone is aware of the content of what they are eating when they do eat these things. To me, it would seem a kindness, to offer education in a form easily found, at the places that are selling these sorts of foods. As far as recipes go, the development of a recipe for a usual "upscale" independent restaurant is built on a set of components that speak "taste and quality". That may include butter or cream or cheese, of course. The development of a recipe for a usual chain restaurant is not built on these components. The components are very different. Psychology is used in developing these recipes, with a focused intent of "exceeding sales goals". Here is an interesting site: Mindless Eating The book is an excellent read. Whether one agrees with the idea that public health is being affected by these things or not, and whether anyone needs to be told anything more than what they already know, or not.

Please don't allow this fact to interfere with my hard-earned reputation for silliness, though. It was just pure luck that *that * particular book was in my hands at this moment. But I might see if I can hunt up the book that includes the cited article, as it seems to be mentioned in many places as a reference. On the other hand, last night I was thinking about Adam's proposal that the meatballs on top of the spaghetti are a remainder from a "larger scope" dish that included more meats and it came to me that when my MIL (born in Italy, emigrated to US as a young woman) made meatballs, they were never solo, or the solo meat. They were cooked in a "ragu" (say "urrurru" and you'll have the sound of it ) a tomato sauce that always included pork spareribs and sausage. The meatballs usually ended up on top of the "spaghetti" with the sauce, the spareribs and sausage on a side platter when served. To use the thinking of the author of the book I cited, this sentence or phrase would not be complete with only meatballs. The other meats were a vital part of correct phraseology. ( )

It would seem that the idea of self-denial takes different shapes at different times in history. Here's a menu from a sixteenth century Tudor cookbook (Good Huswifes Jewell): And that is only the first course. The second course includes such delicacies as Roasted Porpoise, and has many more things upon Sops. Thank goodness it finishes up nicely with That way you can clear your palate to suffer through dessert.

I liked those lemons and limes. They are proof, to me, that an alternate universe does exist right alongside this one. Those particular lemons and limes came from the *other* universe, one night, just to visit, and didn't make it back before dawn broke.

There are both specialty cake pans and candy molds made in Pokemon shapes. You can find them for sale on eBay . . .

I read the topic title quickly, and thought it said "feet". That would bother me.