Let's move the discussion of corporations right out front.

Wow, my topic has really been hijacked. But, we're past 1500 views, so somebody must not mind the wandering internal threads ...

I just finished voting for proxy materials for about 25 companies, and it reminds me of one of my earlier posts (that actually relates to the original topic!): executive compensation at Fortune 1000 companies is just out of control. But, then you run into a really fine American company like Harley-Davidson and it's refreshing: reasonable comp, all the primary officers own large blocks of stock, minimal conflicts of interest. Wish all companies were so straight-forward in the way their execs are compensated.

Wow, my topic has really been hijacked. But, we're past 1500 views, so somebody must not mind the wandering internal threads ...

I just finished voting for proxy materials for about 25 companies, and it reminds me of one of my earlier posts (that actually relates to the original topic!): executive compensation at Fortune 1000 companies is just out of control. But, then you run into a really fine American company like Harley-Davidson and it's refreshing: reasonable comp, all the primary officers own large blocks of stock, minimal conflicts of interest. Wish all companies were so straight-forward in the way their execs are compensated.

case in point : http://louisville.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2007/04/02/daily37.html?jst=b_ln_hl

[Robin Garr]

executive compensation at Fortune 1000 companies is just out of control.

That, and the insane use of bankruptcy as a shelter to allow a company to get away with activity that would be illegal in any normal world ... the airline companies, specifically. Northwest Airlines in particular used bankruptcy to screw its union workers, its pension holders and its stockholders ... and the execs got rich, not only in direct compensation but by publicly selling off millions of dollars worth of stock in the <i>weeks</i> before declaring bankruptcy. It's hard to believe the regulators didn't raise questions - or even criminal charges - about that, but the media and the public all but ignored it.

To be fair, it takes at least 2, and in this case, maybe 3 to degrade this thread to the level it has sunk.

Without Robert's dedicated trolling, that wouldn't have happened. It's all cleaned up now, but let's be real: It doesn't take two or three trolls to mess up a forum, it just takes one.

I don't agree with you at all. The primary problem with Robert is that he expresses a viewpoint counter to what the majority of participants seem to believe: that you can get a good meal at a chain restaurant. I'm not sure that I've ever seen a decent debate on here that addresses that point.

It seems pretty clear to me that the dislike of chain restaurants is in large part due to philosophical reasons. The moderator of the forum says that "the corporate state is ultimately a fascist state." When people believe stuff like that, don't you think it has to influence their perceptions of restaurants?

Robert kept repeating himself chiefly because no one that I've seen managed to refute his simple economic observation that if chains are successful they can't be all that bad at providing decent food at a decent value.

In this particular topic about the evils of corporations, Robert cited Wal-Mart's corporate giving. While you can argue about the relevance, he appeared to be mostly right. But that didn't stop others from saying things like:
"You're on crack. I knew it." Ron Johnson
"An excellent and thoughtful dialogue....marred only by a gnat" Roger Baylor
"The type of thing that genuine adults can discuss" Roger Baylor
Some comments by Mr. Clancy seem to have been removed.

I didn't see where Robert made insulting comments to anyone. He even wished people a happy Easter. But I fail to see how what Ron or Roger said to him could be considered part of a "civil place." In fact you agreed with characterizing Robert as a gnat and called him a troll. While Robert may not have been particularly eloquent in stating his points, he didn't insult people and was actually as much on topic as many of the other posts.

What's the standard you use for deciding what insults to permit: eloquence or agreement with majority viewpoints? Robert might not be an ideal participant, but he doesn't seem to be the person that was out of line here.

John: My "crack" comment was not meant to be taken literally. I do not actually think that Robert smokes the rock form of crack cocaine. I also do not believe that Robert free-bases or snorts it. In fact, I don't really think that Robert uses cocaine or any other illegal narcotic. As far as I know, his intoxicant of choice is Hungarian pear brandy. Sorry, if my little joke upset you as a "flame" toward Robert. Sometimes, people will use hyperbolic metaphors to convey a sentiment like disagreement or disblief. You will sometimes hear someone say, "You're crazy!" in response to the assetion that Magic Johnson was a better ball player than Michael Jordan (as an example). This person does not really believe that his friend has become insane. It's just his way of disagreeing strongly. Sorry that I gave you the wrong impression.

As for your comments about chains in defense of Robert, I don't know how many more ways all of us can say that we don't hate ALL chains, nor do we believe that there are no chains that serve decent food at a decent value. I guess we will keep saying it, and you can keep ignoring it. However, when there is a chain restaurant or a local, independently owned restaurant that serves poor food, overpriced food, has bad service, or implements a policy that somehow offends me, I am going to say so. That's what we do here. This isn't the only say something nice forum, and it's not the you must agree with everything everyone else says forum.

What still remains a mystery to me is why it is taken personally if someone is critical of: chains, suburbs, shopping malls, or planned communities.

John:
I don't think Robert got hammered for the chain comments. His views about chains are well-known. Robin has pointed out many times that he has given favorable reviews to chain restaurants when he thinks that they deserve it. What got out of hand IMO were comments like:

as far as the two clowns across the river I am sure you are both very happy...Like frick and frack....

You really still need to talk to someone about your anger and bitterness....

And I won't even begin to quote the "gnat" and "Leni Riefenstahl" comments. IMO all of this (carefully chosen from both sides!) doesn't shed any light on the topic. Although I have to say again, you have to love a group that references fascist movie directors and anarchist feminists all in one week.

John: My "crack" comment was not meant to be taken literally. I do not actually think that Robert smokes the rock form of crack cocaine. I also do not believe that Robert free-bases or snorts it. In fact, I don't really think that Robert uses cocaine or any other illegal narcotic. As far as I know, his intoxicant of choice is Hungarian pear brandy. Sorry, if my little joke upset you as a "flame" toward Robert. Sometimes, people will use hyperbolic metaphors to convey a sentiment like disagreement or disblief. You will sometimes hear someone say, "You're crazy!" in response to the assetion that Magic Johnson was a better ball player than Michael Jordan (as an example). This person does not really believe that his friend has become insane. It's just his way of disagreeing strongly. Sorry that I gave you the wrong impression.

As for your comments about chains in defense of Robert, I don't know how many more ways all of us can say that we don't hate ALL chains, nor do we believe that there are no chains that serve decent food at a decent value. I guess we will keep saying it, and you can keep ignoring it. However, when there is a chain restaurant or a local, independently owned restaurant that serves poor food, overpriced food, has bad service, or implements a policy that somehow offends me, I am going to say so. That's what we do here. This isn't the only say something nice forum, and it's not the you must agree with everything everyone else says forum.

What still remains a mystery to me is why it is taken personally if someone is critical of: chains, suburbs, shopping malls, or planned communities.

Your "little joke" didn't upset me. I was using it as an example of a comment that could be considered offensive but apparently is OK. The interesting thing about your post was that after Robert and others substantiated his statement about Wal-mart's charitable giving, your response was silence.

As far as taking things personally, I can only speak for me. I have no problem if someone says living in the suburbs sucks. I have a problem if someone says that people live in the suburbs to avoid minorities. I have no problem if someone says chain restaurants are mediocre at best and a waste of dining dollars. I do have a problem if someone implies that people who eat at chains are unsophisticated or have no taste. As long as your opinion doesn't include judgement of other people's choices, you'll get no complaints from me.

John:
I don't think Robert got hammered for the chain comments. His views about chains are well-known. Robin has pointed out many times that he has given favorable reviews to chain restaurants when he thinks that they deserve it. What got out of hand IMO were comments like:

as far as the two clowns across the river I am sure you are both very happy...Like frick and frack....

You really still need to talk to someone about your anger and bitterness....

And I won't even begin to quote the "gnat" and "Leni Riefenstahl" comments. IMO all of this (carefully chosen from both sides!) doesn't shed any light on the topic. Although I have to say again, you have to love a group that references fascist movie directors and anarchist feminists all in one week.

It's worth noting that the two "out of hand" comments from Roger were made AFTER he was insulted by other people. Some folks may blame him for this, but he was RESPONDING to personal comments made by others. Up to that point, he was pretty much on topic even though others disagreed with him.

I agree that it's not appropriate to call people clowns. He did this after the moderator agreed with their criticisms of him. Just seems unfair to me.

[Robin Garr]

I agree that it's not appropriate to call people clowns. He did this after the moderator agreed with their criticisms of him. Just seems unfair to me.

Look, which part of "I'm not encouraging discussion of this and I don't want a long thread about it" did I fail to make clear?

Anybody who doesn't see that Robert has a long history of trolling this forum simply hasn't been paying attention. End of story. Please DON'T respond.

....assertion that Magic Johnson was a better ball player than Michael Jordan (

Whadya', crazy, Ron? That's like saying Ol' Blue Eyes was a better balladeer than Elvis!

John: My "crack" comment was not meant to be taken literally. I do not actually think that Robert smokes the rock form of crack cocaine. I also do not believe that Robert free-bases or snorts it. In fact, I don't really think that Robert uses cocaine or any other illegal narcotic. As far as I know, his intoxicant of choice is Hungarian pear brandy. Sorry, if my little joke upset you as a "flame" toward Robert. Sometimes, people will use hyperbolic metaphors to convey a sentiment like disagreement or disblief. You will sometimes hear someone say, "You're crazy!" in response to the assetion that Magic Johnson was a better ball player than Michael Jordan (as an example). This person does not really believe that his friend has become insane. It's just his way of disagreeing strongly. Sorry that I gave you the wrong impression.

As for your comments about chains in defense of Robert, I don't know how many more ways all of us can say that we don't hate ALL chains, nor do we believe that there are no chains that serve decent food at a decent value. I guess we will keep saying it, and you can keep ignoring it. However, when there is a chain restaurant or a local, independently owned restaurant that serves poor food, overpriced food, has bad service, or implements a policy that somehow offends me, I am going to say so. That's what we do here. This isn't the only say something nice forum, and it's not the you must agree with everything everyone else says forum.

What still remains a mystery to me is why it is taken personally if someone is critical of: chains, suburbs, shopping malls, or planned communities.

Your "little joke" didn't upset me. I was using it as an example of a comment that could be considered offensive but apparently is OK. The interesting thing about your post was that after Robert and others substantiated his statement about Wal-mart's charitable giving, your response was silence.

I am glad you found that interesting. If you must know, the reason there was no response from me after my last post on charitable giving was due to the fact that I was out of town on business without computer access. You'll notice that there are no other posts from me on any other threads during that same time period. No Perry Mason moment there.

I like some chains if they are done right. But Chains exist mostly for their shareholders. Patrons are an after-thought in some cases. These are the chains that are evil. But some are worth my hard earned dollar. That is my decision. No one should be ridiculed for their opinion.

My 2 cents

Joe C

PS If you want to know why Medical care is so high, look at Insurance CEO's re imbursement. About 2 -3 years ago, the CEO of Anthem received $45 Million bonus - thats right - 45 million dollars for denying patients claims and paying doctors 40 cents on the dollar.
United Healthcare CEO - about $15 million

Thanks for all of the Pro and Con remarks about me.....But as Robin has said a few times...I think that "ALL" points have been made and it is time to move on.....

:D Thanks for all of the Pro and Con remarks about me.....But as Robin has said a few times...I think that "ALL" points have been made and it is time to move on.....

Beside the original topic, this is the best post on the entire thread.

I will just respond to the original thread.

I think it would be great if people paid more attention to the local restaurants and went to the chain restaurants less. The main reason I feel this way is because small business is the backbone of the economy, and people who run small businesses are largely trying to escape from working for corporations, in my estimation. So give them a break with your business, so they don't have to be miserable in the ways they have to make money!

But I think that there are multiple reasons people choose to eat at chains.

1. Chains are much better advertised than locals.
2. Chains tend to serve foods that are more "regular fare" (enhanced versions of things you'd make at home) or bland, and that's what the average American likes. Don't correct me on this, because we all know it's true.
3. Chains tend to be a lot more visible on the landscape (and thus on people's minds) -- their signage is bigger and better. They go "Hey! Look at me!"
4. Chain buffets can afford to have troughs for the obese and the obese-wannabes. How many of the big-boned do you see at local restaurants?
5. And this is a recent trend: Gift Cards!

What local restaurants need to do to counteract these things are:

1. Band together and form organizations for group marketing -- already happening in Louisville with "Louisville Originals". This is a very good trend.
2. Become known for having the best ______ in town. Or be the only place that offers _____.
3. Keep your menus simple, but choices delightfully different (but not too different).
4. Cater to people with special needs/tastes, such as vegetarians or people on diets. Make vegetarian taste so good that people don't think it's vegetarian. Same as for diet platters.
5. Give your regulars excellent service and form personal bonds with them. They *will* tell their friends about you, so use them as a resource.
6. Smile. In a s**t-eating way. Warmth and good food make for repeat visits.

The above, of course, is just my opinion.

Now, don't get me wrong on chains. There are _some_ chains that serve great food. And I can count them all on one hand.