Alexis Rich wrote:What would you do? Heckle? Ask to be reseated? Leave? Complain? Or would you just go ahead and eat and try not let anyone ruin your good time? (Which is what we did.) I'm just curious what other folks would've done. I think there's been a pretty good discussion as to what BUSINESSES would do, but what about patrons?
Oh, I'm not naming names so don't even bother.
Alexis Rich wrote: Or would you just go ahead and eat and try not let anyone ruin your good time? (Which is what we did.)
Steve H wrote:Anyone prepared to throw over the norms of civilized society contributes to the anarchy. Remember, these norms did not evolve over centuries so people could be civil to their friends and allies. They evolved so adversaries and random acquaintances could interact and engage in public without violence. We will all miss them once they are gone.
Robin Garr wrote:I totally agree about haranguing and harassing, but I don't see a civil, quiet approach is being any less normative than a politician deciding that it isn't necessary to speak frankly with his public.
SilvioM wrote:Robin Garr wrote:I totally agree about haranguing and harassing, but I don't see a civil, quiet approach is being any less normative than a politician deciding that it isn't necessary to speak frankly with his public.
It might be quiet, but I don't consider it "civil" to unwantedly intrude upon a private outing. Maybe he would like to stop eating to have a chat with a stranger, but if not, so be it.
SilvioM wrote:Can one disagree with you on this issue while still having the mental facilities to "grasp the problem"? Just curious.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests