tommy

in bethlehem, PA, they have lemongrass and fresh kaffir lime leaf. the former is becoming more and more available at regular upscale markets, but the latter is very hard to find even in north jersey (which has a pretty good selection of asian markets).

just like that scene in Tommy Boy, when farley's character "really wants some chicken wings," although the restaurant had "already turned off the fryers." he said in a sweet way, "gee, i'd *really* love some chicken wings right now." the waitress said, "ok, let me see if they have any left...[stands there for a second]...NOPE." of course, farley goes on to freak out act like a complete idiot, but, in the process, appeals to the server's compassionate side, and she finally agrees to go turn on the fryer and make the fellow some wings. so, if we've learned anything from that movie, it's that freaking out helps more than being polite. but probably only when you want chicken wings.

no no, i'd still like to discuss this.

i think plotz and others are saying that you can possibly receive the best a restaurant can offer even on the first visit. the steps one might take include, but are not limited to: showing an interest in the menu, doing a bit of research ahead of time, asking specifically if the chef would have the time and feel comfortable choosing the meal, etc.

i lived on this stuff through college, although it was a generic referred to as "bug juice." that and piels/budwieser. i gotta go with red as a favorite. although orange could be a close second.

i do. although your wording is a little strong. edit: "strong" as in the choice of words or implication was a bit strong. but i have no problem with a good customer (repeat customer who spends gobs of money) having different opportunities than a first-time customer, or a customer who doesn't show any interest beyond the printed menu.

this basildog is one tough nut to crack.

not all the time, as is evident by the treatment a few posters got at babbo. did you read that thread? it's just not cut-and-dry.

I thought the WSJ did. Maybe I misunderstood the WSJ article. Did they first go to all of these restaurants and eat off of the menu and then return and ask to order off the menu? right. it might be important to recognize that these "personal" attacks are actually directed towards the article one way or another.

i've done it. and do it. appropriately. and when appropriate. and as i've stated, i'm playing devil's advocate.

I hope I haven't said this and I apologize if I had. What I thought I did say was that "people who have the money are entitled to the best they can afford." Meaning nobody should be able to tell you how to spend your money if you aren't hurting anyone by doing it. why would an apology be necessary? i really can't see that much of a difference btwn that paraphrased quote and your direct quote. at least not enough that would merit an apology.

4 people have used "entitlement," including plotz. i think you're reading way too much into my comments. if you read steve's, you'll see that he states something like, as suzanne quotes, that people who have the money deserve the best the restaurant has to offer. i posted something to that affect in response to Jaz, only so i could post about left-over short ribs without being told i was off topic. if you erase your references to this, i'll gladly do the same, in an effort to keep this on-topic.

edited for snow drift.

edited for topic drift.

because people who have money and work hard deserve the best. as far as the short ribs go, i'd bet that they could have been from yesterday. let's face it, they're better the next day.

is that what you've taken from this thread? that people think it's terrible that some get food that other diners don't know about? oh dear. where did we go wrong.

i do that quite often.

when martin offered his thoughts on the topic and you took it personally?

from a few weeks ago: from stone's visit a few days ago:

and in a perfect world everyone would be eating the best that every restaurant has to offer every night. and, i think it's clear that we're (mostly) on the same side on this one.

i'm not saying that at all. if anything, i'm playing devil's advocate. however, the notion that people can sometimes make requests that are obnoxious and stem from entitlement is obviously shared by a few posters. do all diners know what "no" means? i'm guessing that depends.

to extend the scenario... you ask the server. she seems confused. you ask her to speak with the kitchen. she does and suggests that it won't be possible tonite. the manager hears of the exchange and asks the kitchen to do what they can. i dunno. my point is that it's not as simple as just asking and taking no for an answer. the situation, clearly, can be a bit more dynamic. and those who might be prone to entitlement might not pick up on those clues that they are in fact asking too much, and will go on their merry way telling everyone about how the chef at x restaurant is always more than pleased to do anything for the diner, if he or she shows that he or she is discerning. ediot: speeling.

yes. it won't let you play unless you make up an answer for every question.

it's safe to say that pretty much everyone here has a better understanding, or at least is demonstrating a better understanding, of the issue than the reports in the article did. but then again, they're just trying to sell newspapers.

i haven't seen anyone characterize these requests as "inherently obnoxious." besides, it's not what you say, but how you say it. as far as it possibly compromising one of any number of people, look at the situation where the manager pushes the kitchen to grant the request, even though they are in the weeds, only because perhaps the person has ordered an expensive bottle, or because the manager knows he's a good customer. now, i submit, the kitchen, and perhaps the servers are being put out. cleary it's not always as straight forward as "If you ask, and they don't do it, the exchange is over. Nobody has been put out to do anything except answer your question. "