OK, so I thought this was unusual . . .

Perhaps I'm being sensitive to the current economic environment. I wouldn't want to cause diners to avoid an indie.
Also, I got a bit singed the last time I named a restuarant for less than stellar service.

Has happened to me as well. Sometimes truth is best not written. Just last week I was not pointing out a Chinese place for less than stellar food. Leah, like you, I want to see NO local fail. But, where do we draw the line? If a place is great say it, but what if it really sux?

Here's my personal policy on naming restaurants in terms of bad experiences:

I would name the place if I feel the bad experience is representative of what I think is typical for the restaurant. I do not feel any obligation to protect a local establishment. I do feel some sort of responsibility (that might be too strong a word) to provide information that will be useful to fellow diners. Obviously any such pronouncement should be viewed as merely "one person's" opinion.

I would not name the place if I feel the experience is an aberration away from what has been my typical experience at the restaurant. The on-going conversation we are having here seems to be more about the actions of one server and not issues with a particular establishment.

In the end, I would probably not name places unless I have an absolutely horrible experience, have two bad experiences in a row (that's called a trend), or I have a bad experience in dealing with a manager/owner. Really that's where I draw the line. I have no problem talking over an issue with a manager on reasonable terms. If I'm unhappy with this conversation, all bets are off. Other than just absolute poor food, the only reason I can think of for me never returning to a restaurant is poor resolution of issues by a manager.