Quote from OJ

Ok! I didn't comment on this subject,when it was first mentioned.First of all ,It's crazy that everyone makes a big deal about this and things like paris Hilton.We have so many other issues going on in America.We have a farmer being a Smart !@# and asking "I wonder where he ate" and then a bunch of people saying I would have thrown him out too.Easy to say after the fact! Listen, Jeff Ruby is NO HERO for asking him to leave,nor am I a murderer or support O.J for serving him. Our HEROES are fighting a horrible war right now.My mom and family had to bury my 23 year old cousin 2 weeks ago.(who was killed in the war) fighting for all of us.Once again, Jeff Ruby is no Hero! In my opinion,it was a big publicity stunt.I respect his decesion,because he has that right.After seeing the interview on CNN it showed his real motive. He talked more about his cigar and what he was wearing.I recieved alot of e-mails from local Chefs and restaurant owners telling me I did nothing wrong and how they felt about the whole thing.Most agree it was for selfesh reasons. Anyways, I just let it all out! This is just my opinion.I don't think we need to worry about who will serve him next year!

Ruby had every right to refuse him service and you had every right to serve him dinner. That's what makes this a great country. There are no heroes or villains in this matter . . . . well unless you count O.J.

[Robin Garr]

Ruby had every right to refuse him service and you had every right to serve him dinner. That's what makes this a great country. There are no heroes or villains in this matter . . . . well unless you count O.J.

While I don't entirely disagree with this, as time passes and gives us perspective, I'm not so certain that Ruby's much publicized OJ ejection was a great thing.

First, no matter what his initial decision was based on or how pure his motives, the fact that he was seemingly so eager to grab the ensuing publicity, the CNN appearance, the hat and the cigar ... it all just kind of smudges what might originally have been done with pure motive, it seems to me.

Second, I'm kind of on board with Anthony: The great tradition of restaurant hospitality extends to providing your customers - all of them - with excellent hospitality, food and service. We might decide that it was bold of Ruby to throw out O.J., but would we feel the same way if he threw out, say, Ernie Fletcher? Well, bad example there. But seriously: I'm not sure I'm really down with celebrating when a restaurant owner ejects a client because he doesn't like him. Where does it end, once you start down that road?

I'm leary of the "where does it end" argument. Instead of focusing on the slippery slope, judge this act.

Jeff Ruby is clearly someone who enjoys his own image and the limelight. I doubt he was playing the publicity game when he did it (but he might have), but I am sure he milked for all he could once it became "news." I doubt he would apologize for that.

Personally, I find Anthony's defensive remarks a bit problematic as well, to be honest. He can serve OJ if he wants, but he seems to need to attack others to do so.

I'm never terribly comfortable with the "this isn't really news" angle that many support. Is it as important as items concerning Iraq? No, certainly not. Does that mean it should not be a topic of discussion? Again, certainly not.

The assumption in many of the arguments against the so called non-news items is we should be concerned with topics of a more serious nature instead of those that are ultimately trivial. But the two are not mutually exclusive. Does anyone really think we would get MORE attention on Iraq if Paris Hilton weren't in the news? Would pieces on "enemy combatant detainees" increase if no one talked about the Jeff Ruby incident? Perhaps some think so, but I contend that they wouldn't.

Even with all the attention given to celebreties at news outlets, we're still innundated with information about cultural and political atrocities here and abroad. Ultimately, these stories are blips. The more serious stories are with us day-in and day-out. As any good preacher knows, though, it can't all be fire and brimstone.

Personally, I'm GLAD stories like OJ and Paris and Anna Nicole Smith's baby make it into the news.

I'm not touching the "is Jeff Ruby a 'hero'?" issue though.

Ruby had every right to refuse him service and you had every right to serve him dinner. That's what makes this a great country. There are no heroes or villains in this matter . . . . well unless you count O.J.

While I don't entirely disagree with this, as time passes and gives us perspective, I'm not so certain that Ruby's much publicized OJ ejection was a great thing.

First, no matter what his initial decision was based on or how pure his motives, the fact that he was seemingly so eager to grab the ensuing publicity, the CNN appearance, the hat and the cigar ... it all just kind of smudges what might originally have been done with pure motive, it seems to me.

Second, I'm kind of on board with Anthony: The great tradition of restaurant hospitality extends to providing your customers - all of them - with excellent hospitality, food and service. We might decide that it was bold of Ruby to throw out O.J., but would we feel the same way if he threw out, say, Ernie Fletcher? Well, bad example there. But seriously: I'm not sure I'm really down with celebrating when a restaurant owner ejects a client because he doesn't like him. Where does it end, once you start down that road?

Hmm, not sure you got the point of my post as I was not advocating one side over the other. My point was that I like the fact that Jeff Ruby could take one tact and Anthony could take another.

The problem with the position that you advocate is the same as the one you question. Where does it end once you start down that road? I can think of many instances where a restaurant owner should not be forced to serve a particular individual.

Should a restaurant owner have to serve a leader of the Ku Klux Klan when they are in town for a march? What about a man who molested a friend's child after he was released from prison?

[Robin Garr]

Hmm, not sure you got the point of my post as I was not advocating one side over the other. My point was that I like the fact that Jeff Ruby could take one tact and Anthony could take another.

I understood and wasn't doubting your point, only expressing another view.

The problem with the position that you advocate is the same as the one you question. Where does it end once you start down that road? I can think of many instances where a restaurant owner should not be forced to serve a particular individual.

Should a restaurant owner have to serve a leader of the Ku Klux Klan when they are in town for a march? What about a man who molested a friend's child after he was released from prison?

Like I said, it's a tough call, and the examples you give are much easier to applaud than, say, banning Ernie Fletcher or John Yarmuth from your eatery because you don't like their politics.

In the abstract, I'm still inclined to feel edgy and not entirely happy about restaurateurs making value judgements on who they want to serve, assuming that those people aren't currently locked up in prison for their offenses. And assuming that they behave appropriately while on the premises. If the wizard burns a little cross on his table or the pedophile wants to fondle a young server, it would certainly be time for them to go.

On the whole, though, I might advocate serving the wizard or the pedophile but then spit in their food, or over-charge them, ... but as I said before, there's a long and honorable tradition of restaurant hospitality, and I don't know that I want to encourage an ad hoc system of the maitre d' or owner deciding who gets to be served.

In the abstract, I'm still inclined to feel edgy and not entirely happy about restaurateurs making value judgements on who they want to serve, assuming that those people aren't currently locked up in prison for their offenses.

I think this is an example where I am much more comfortable dining in a locally owned restaurant where the owner is on premises and making the decision rather than some massive chain restaurant where the decision is made pursuant to some corporate memo from the PR department.

I am not a libertarian by any stretch, but I would be horrified by some law or regulation that required a business owner to serve everyone who sought to patronize the business no matter what.

If I did not have the ability to decline representation of some potential clients, I would quit practicing law.

Everyone has valid points here. This is what's great about our country.We all have different views on different subjects.It may be President Bush,someones faith in a higher power or where their favorite dinning spot is.People are all different! Make food not war! Buen provecho!

Does anyone really think we would get MORE attention on Iraq if Paris Hilton weren't in the news? Would pieces on "enemy combatant detainees" increase if no one talked about the Jeff Ruby incident? Perhaps some think so, but I contend that they wouldn't.

Support that hypothesis, Aaron.

Would pictures and stories of american soldiers in caskets coming home stop the war any faster? Would the detention of political prisoners end and they be granted trials in U.S. civil courtrooms occur any faster? My contention is if we had fire and brimstone everyday then maybe we could address the issues that cause them. Every minute given over to O.J. Hilton and the like divert our attention from OUR REAL ISSUES. These issues are not democratic or republican. They are basic human and civil rights issues which we should be concerned with and which do not get any more attention because news has become entertainment and entertainment sells soap.

Support that hypothesis, Aaron.

Would pictures and stories of american soldiers in caskets coming home stop the war any faster? Would the detention of political prisoners end and they be granted trials in U.S. civil courtrooms occur any faster? My contention is if we had fire and brimstone everyday then maybe we could address the issues that cause them. Every minute given over to O.J. Hilton and the like divert our attention from OUR REAL ISSUES. These issues are not democratic or republican. They are basic human and civil rights issues which we should be concerned with and which do not get any more attention because news has become entertainment and entertainment sells soap.

Support it? Ultimately it's an opinion. What support could I possibly offer that you would accept?

What I was saying is that we DO get fire and brimstone every day. OJ and Paris don't prevent that. All of us, every single one of us, enjoys a certain amount of trivial news. Yes yes yes Iraq is important, human rights are real issues. No one is discounting that. If you really think that absolutely nothing should distract anyone from 'our real issues' why do we congregate on a message board about food? Should we cease all pleasure reading to focus 100% or serious political and human rights concerns? That's the logical conclusion to which your position would be taken.

In this modern age of 24-hour news channels and persistent online news agencies, there's is plenty of room to adequately cover important issues, and trivial puff pieces.

Ruby had every right to refuse him service and you had every right to serve him dinner. That's what makes this a great country. There are no heroes or villains in this matter . . . . well unless you count O.J.

While I don't entirely disagree with this, as time passes and gives us perspective, I'm not so certain that Ruby's much publicized OJ ejection was a great thing.

First, no matter what his initial decision was based on or how pure his motives, the fact that he was seemingly so eager to grab the ensuing publicity, the CNN appearance, the hat and the cigar ... it all just kind of smudges what might originally have been done with pure motive, it seems to me.

Second, I'm kind of on board with Anthony: The great tradition of restaurant hospitality extends to providing your customers - all of them - with excellent hospitality, food and service. We might decide that it was bold of Ruby to throw out O.J., but would we feel the same way if he threw out, say, Ernie Fletcher? Well, bad example there. But seriously: I'm not sure I'm really down with celebrating when a restaurant owner ejects a client because he doesn't like him. Where does it end, once you start down that road?

Hmmm......I don't care much for Fletcher but I would throw out W in a New York minute....those damn principles ya know!! (imagine the publicity I'd get from that....er..um..perhaps a nice long rest in Gitmo Bay??)

Sorry Aaron.

I was using the definition of hypothesis as an interpretation of a practical condition taken as the grounds for action or discussion. It wasn't meant as a throwdown. I agree that is why we get on here and talk about food. And I would be ecstatic if anyone would focus 10% on serious political or human rights concerns. It's a serious world we live in. So much for that, I see Paris is about to get her toenails done in solitary confinement by Ravi Shankar thus helping both their careers. Can't miss that.

people make decisions based on their environment, and the environment constantly changes. "here is a celebrity/person of notoriety that I don't want in my house, I ask him to leave." "I am in the business of serving food and here is a man wanting to buy some, I serve him." The next day this becomes the talk of literally hundreds of millions of people. The true hero says, "no comment".