Met up with daughter after work last night and on the spur of the 
moment, decided to see if we could get a table at Andrew Edmunds in 
Lexington Street.  We did.  Couldn't sit upstairs, so sat in the 
basement, which wasn't blazing hot, despite the muggy weather.  The 
food, as always, was superb and not expensive.  Great stuff.  Highly 
recommended.

We couldn't help thinking of our meals in the restaurant with Graham, 
Greg and Sarah  and drank their health!  Hopefully, Greg will see this 
and pass on our best wishes to Sarah.
-- 
June Hughes

In article , June Hughes 
 writes
>Met up with daughter after work last night and on the spur of the 
>moment, decided to see if we could get a table at Andrew Edmunds in 
>Lexington Street.  We did.  Couldn't sit upstairs, so sat in the 
>basement, which wasn't blazing hot, despite the muggy weather.  The 
>food, as always, was superb and not expensive.  Great stuff.  Highly 
>recommended.

Spooky - on Wednesday evening I was on a rare visit to Soho and had a 
glass of wine and some Iberico ham, chorizo, Spanish cheeses and olives 
in Fernandez & Wells, a little wine bar directly across the street from 
Andrew Edmunds. It's an odd little place - only about eight stools, no 
tables. And quite expensive!
-- 
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

In message , congokid 
 writes
>In article , June Hughes 
> writes
>>Met up with daughter after work last night and on the spur of the 
>>moment, decided to see if we could get a table at Andrew Edmunds in 
>>Lexington Street.  We did.  Couldn't sit upstairs, so sat in the 
>>basement, which wasn't blazing hot, despite the muggy weather.  The 
>>food, as always, was superb and not expensive.  Great stuff.  Highly 
>>recommended.
>
>Spooky - on Wednesday evening I was on a rare visit to Soho and had a 
>glass of wine and some Iberico ham, chorizo, Spanish cheeses and olives 
>in Fernandez & Wells, a little wine bar directly across the street from 
>Andrew Edmunds. It's an odd little place - only about eight stools, no 
>tables. And quite expensive!

I noticed it when we came out of AE.  What a busy area that is!  There 
were young people, mostly people who seemed to work there - not tourists 
- in huge numbers (well - 50 to 100 per pub) drinking beer outside all 
the pubs.  That certainly is the place to have a pub.
-- 
June Hughes

In article <T3Nv7$JEdprIFwzj@theacct.demon.co.uk>, June Hughes 
 writes

>What a busy area that is!  There were young people, mostly people who 
>seemed to work there - not tourists - in huge numbers (well - 50 to 100 
>per pub) drinking beer outside all the pubs.  That certainly is the 
>place to have a pub.

The John Snow pub at the top of Lexington Street was one of my locals 
when I worked in Wardour Street, though I don't think we ever stood 
outside.

Other favourites were Nellie Dean, Ship, Blue Posts, Pillars of 
Hercules, Crown & Two Chairmen, Bath House, Coach & Horses, All Bar One, 
Slug & Lettuce, Carlisle Arms, De Hems, French House, The George, Moon & 
Sixpence, Sun & 13 Cantons, The Toucan, and probably some others.
-- 
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:41:03 +0100, congokid 
wrote:

>In article <T3Nv7$JEdprIFwzj@theacct.demon.co.uk>, June Hughes 
> writes
>
>>What a busy area that is!  There were young people, mostly people who 
>>seemed to work there - not tourists - in huge numbers (well - 50 to 100 
>>per pub) drinking beer outside all the pubs.  That certainly is the 
>>place to have a pub.
>
>The John Snow pub at the top of Lexington Street was one of my locals 
>when I worked in Wardour Street, though I don't think we ever stood 
>outside.
>
>Other favourites were Nellie Dean, Ship, Blue Posts, Pillars of 
>Hercules, Crown & Two Chairmen, Bath House, Coach & Horses, All Bar One, 
>Slug & Lettuce, Carlisle Arms, De Hems, French House, The George, Moon & 
>Sixpence, Sun & 13 Cantons, The Toucan, and probably some others.

The standing outside is due to the Smoking ban.  For some reason, the
smokers tend to be better company than the religiously non smoking
crowd.

Regards
JonH

wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:41:03 +0100, congokid 
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <T3Nv7$JEdprIFwzj@theacct.demon.co.uk>, June Hughes 
> > writes
> >
> >>What a busy area that is!  There were young people, mostly people who
> >>seemed to work there - not tourists - in huge numbers (well - 50 to 100
> >>per pub) drinking beer outside all the pubs.  That certainly is the
> >>place to have a pub.
> >
> >The John Snow pub at the top of Lexington Street was one of my locals
> >when I worked in Wardour Street, though I don't think we ever stood 
> >outside.
> >
> >Other favourites were Nellie Dean, Ship, Blue Posts, Pillars of 
> >Hercules, Crown & Two Chairmen, Bath House, Coach & Horses, All Bar One,
> >Slug & Lettuce, Carlisle Arms, De Hems, French House, The George, Moon &
> >Sixpence, Sun & 13 Cantons, The Toucan, and probably some others.
> 
> The standing outside is due to the Smoking ban.  

Hardly- in warmer weather, it's always heaving outside the pubs in Soho-
and previously a lot of them were escaping the smoky fug indoors. Before
the ban, I tended to avoid most pubs unless they had separate areas
(very rare) or if I would stand (or get a seat) outdoors.

-- 
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net 
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the 
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about. 
Otherwise they should just shut up about it."  -Richard Dawkins

In message , 
JonH@Underthewagon.net writes
>On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:41:03 +0100, congokid 
>wrote:
>
>>In article <T3Nv7$JEdprIFwzj@theacct.demon.co.uk>, June Hughes
>> writes
>>
>>>What a busy area that is!  There were young people, mostly people who
>>>seemed to work there - not tourists - in huge numbers (well - 50 to 100
>>>per pub) drinking beer outside all the pubs.  That certainly is the
>>>place to have a pub.
>>
>>The John Snow pub at the top of Lexington Street was one of my locals
>>when I worked in Wardour Street, though I don't think we ever stood
>>outside.
>>
>>Other favourites were Nellie Dean, Ship, Blue Posts, Pillars of
>>Hercules, Crown & Two Chairmen, Bath House, Coach & Horses, All Bar One,
>>Slug & Lettuce, Carlisle Arms, De Hems, French House, The George, Moon &
>>Sixpence, Sun & 13 Cantons, The Toucan, and probably some others.
>
>The standing outside is due to the Smoking ban.  For some reason, the
>smokers tend to be better company than the religiously non smoking
>crowd.
>
>Regards
>JonH

I didn't notice many of them smoking but that may be correct.  Either 
way, there were many people.
-- 
June Hughes

In article , 
JonH@Underthewagon.net writes

>The standing outside is due to the Smoking ban.

Not really. Hordes of people, me included, regularly drank outside Soho 
pubs in summertime well before the ban. I believe Westminster council 
occasionally tried to force drinkers indoors again, but not very 
successfully.
-- 
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:54:49 +0100, June Hughes
 wrote:

>Andrew Edmunds in 
>Lexington Street.  We did.  Couldn't sit upstairs, so sat in the 
>basement, which wasn't blazing hot, despite the muggy weather.  The 
>food, as always, was superb and not expensive.  Great stuff.  Highly 
>recommended.

Lots of reviews here. Andrew Edmunds doesn't sound great! 

http://www.london-eating.co.uk/171.htm

wrote in message 
news:6klta413ba756ha1646hv7vrfi1jjkjc5p@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:41:03 +0100, congokid 
> wrote:
>
>>In article <T3Nv7$JEdprIFwzj@theacct.demon.co.uk>, June Hughes
>> writes
>>
>>>What a busy area that is!  There were young people, mostly people who
>>>seemed to work there - not tourists - in huge numbers (well - 50 to 100
>>>per pub) drinking beer outside all the pubs.  That certainly is the
>>>place to have a pub.
>>
>>The John Snow pub at the top of Lexington Street was one of my locals
>>when I worked in Wardour Street, though I don't think we ever stood
>>outside.
>>
>>Other favourites were Nellie Dean, Ship, Blue Posts, Pillars of
>>Hercules, Crown & Two Chairmen, Bath House, Coach & Horses, All Bar One,
>>Slug & Lettuce, Carlisle Arms, De Hems, French House, The George, Moon &
>>Sixpence, Sun & 13 Cantons, The Toucan, and probably some others.
>
> The standing outside is due to the Smoking ban.  For some reason, the
> smokers tend to be better company than the religiously non smoking
> crowd.
>
With fewer and fewer smoking, the opposite is true, at least it is in this 
town! You make us sound like birkenstock-wearing, hairshirted vegans!
Graham

Op Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:44:16 GMT frommelde Graham :

> You make us sound like birkenstock-wearing, hairshirted vegans!

You mean to say you aren't? Shock! Awe!

-- 
*** Waldo ***
Brother, can you s'paradigm?

"Waldo Centini" <"waldocentini[NOSPAM]"@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:16ou66gxhdzhw.1uwt4s67i7htp$.dlg@40tude.net...
> Op Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:44:16 GMT frommelde Graham :
>
>> You make us sound like birkenstock-wearing, hairshirted vegans!
>
> You mean to say you aren't? Shock! Awe!
>
A study of members of The Vegetarian Society found that they died violent 
deaths more often than normal people.
Graham

June Hughes  wrote in news:6qe1MjGJDnrIFwX0
@theacct.demon.co.uk:

> Met up with daughter after work last night and on the spur of the 
> moment, decided to see if we could get a table at Andrew Edmunds in 
> Lexington Street.  We did.  Couldn't sit upstairs, so sat in the 
> basement, which wasn't blazing hot, despite the muggy weather.  The 
> food, as always, was superb and not expensive.  Great stuff.  Highly 
> recommended.

Another target for me (along with Murano whenever it opens on Gt Queen 
Street) - I actually recommended it for someone wanting to take a quirky 
lady on a date, I thought it might fit the bill. Not sure about the 
outcome. Really must set aside a night to visit this place.

Richard

Corey Richardson  wrote in 
news:069ua45q94hb47ghpsiak7o8cr3cct006m@4ax.com:

> Lots of reviews here. Andrew Edmunds doesn't sound great! 
> 
> http://www.london-eating.co.uk/171.htm

As with tripadvisor, a lot of people I find are compelled to review a bad 
experience, which makes me always take reviews tongue-in-cheek. The Anchor 
and Hope gets some shockers of reviews but I love it dearly. I imagine 
Andrew Edmunds to be ramshackle (much like A&H) so will get marked down 
every time by the white-linen-and-overly-attentive-service-brigade that 
look for style over substance in a restaurant. My humble opinion, 
obviously.

Cheers
Richard

In message , Richard 
Dixon  writes
>June Hughes  wrote in news:6qe1MjGJDnrIFwX0
>@theacct.demon.co.uk:
>
>> Met up with daughter after work last night and on the spur of the
>> moment, decided to see if we could get a table at Andrew Edmunds in
>> Lexington Street.  We did.  Couldn't sit upstairs, so sat in the
>> basement, which wasn't blazing hot, despite the muggy weather.  The
>> food, as always, was superb and not expensive.  Great stuff.  Highly
>> recommended.
>
>Another target for me (along with Murano whenever it opens on Gt Queen
>Street) - I actually recommended it for someone wanting to take a quirky
>lady on a date, I thought it might fit the bill. Not sure about the
>outcome. Really must set aside a night to visit this place.
>
>Richard

Well worth it, Richard.  Several of us here have been twice but it only 
works for small parties.  BTW - I still haven't made it to Scoop.
-- 
June Hughes

In message , Richard 
Dixon  writes
>Corey Richardson  wrote in
>news:069ua45q94hb47ghpsiak7o8cr3cct006m@4ax.com:
>
>> Lots of reviews here. Andrew Edmunds doesn't sound great!
>>
>> http://www.london-eating.co.uk/171.htm
>
>As with tripadvisor, a lot of people I find are compelled to review a bad
>experience, which makes me always take reviews tongue-in-cheek. The Anchor
>and Hope gets some shockers of reviews but I love it dearly. I imagine
>Andrew Edmunds to be ramshackle (much like A&H) so will get marked down
>every time by the white-linen-and-overly-attentive-service-brigade that
>look for style over substance in a restaurant. My humble opinion,
>obviously.
>
Exactly - but reading the name of the author to whom you are replying, I 
am not surprised that he/she has adverse comments to make.  AE is small 
and quirky but the food, IME, has been consistently good.

-- 
June Hughes

"June Hughes"  wrote in message 
news:o$8hprIZzxtIFwFt@theacct.demon.co.uk...
> In message , Richard 
> Dixon  writes
>>Corey Richardson  wrote in
>>news:069ua45q94hb47ghpsiak7o8cr3cct006m@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Lots of reviews here. Andrew Edmunds doesn't sound great!
>>>
>>> http://www.london-eating.co.uk/171.htm
>>
>>As with tripadvisor, a lot of people I find are compelled to review a bad
>>experience, which makes me always take reviews tongue-in-cheek. The Anchor
>>and Hope gets some shockers of reviews but I love it dearly. I imagine
>>Andrew Edmunds to be ramshackle (much like A&H) so will get marked down
>>every time by the white-linen-and-overly-attentive-service-brigade that
>>look for style over substance in a restaurant. My humble opinion,
>>obviously.
>>
> Exactly - but reading the name of the author to whom you are replying, I 
> am not surprised that he/she has adverse comments to make.  AE is small 
> and quirky but the food, IME, has been consistently good.
>
> -- 
An overall score of 7.9/10 doesn't strike me as being negative.
Graham

June Hughes  wrote in
news:o$8hprIZzxtIFwFt@theacct.demon.co.uk: 


>>As with tripadvisor, a lot of people I find are compelled to review a
>>bad experience, which makes me always take reviews tongue-in-cheek.
>>The Anchor and Hope gets some shockers of reviews but I love it
>>dearly. I imagine Andrew Edmunds to be ramshackle (much like A&H) so
>>will get marked down every time by the
>>white-linen-and-overly-attentive-service-brigade that look for style
>>over substance in a restaurant. My humble opinion, obviously.
>>
> Exactly - but reading the name of the author to whom you are replying,
> I am not surprised that he/she has adverse comments to make.  AE is
> small and quirky but the food, IME, has been consistently good.

I must be oblivious to all this re: the original author. Given the history 
on here in the past 6 months with the amount of saddoes trying to disrupt 
rather than having a social life, I won't invest too much time in checking.

A changing daily menu (which I believe AE has?) surely must be a sign of a 
bloody inventive chef!!

Richard

June Hughes  wrote in
news:JsjZdcHkvxtIFwAc@theacct.demon.co.uk: 

> Well worth it, Richard.  Several of us here have been twice but it
> only works for small parties.  BTW - I still haven't made it to Scoop.

Right - let's do a deal: you do scoop, I'll do AE. Sold?

Richard

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:47:05 +0100, June Hughes
 wrote:

>In message , Richard 
>Dixon  writes
>>Corey Richardson  wrote in
>>news:069ua45q94hb47ghpsiak7o8cr3cct006m@4ax.com:
>>
>>> Lots of reviews here. Andrew Edmunds doesn't sound great!
>>>
>>> http://www.london-eating.co.uk/171.htm
>>
>>As with tripadvisor, a lot of people I find are compelled to review a bad
>>experience, which makes me always take reviews tongue-in-cheek. The Anchor
>>and Hope gets some shockers of reviews but I love it dearly. I imagine
>>Andrew Edmunds to be ramshackle (much like A&H) so will get marked down
>>every time by the white-linen-and-overly-attentive-service-brigade that
>>look for style over substance in a restaurant. My humble opinion,
>>obviously.
>>
>Exactly - but reading the name of the author to whom you are replying, I 
>am not surprised that he/she has adverse comments to make.  AE is small 
>and quirky but the food, IME, has been consistently good.

Eh? 

*I* didn't make the comments about Andrew Edmunds at that site!

Corey Richardson wrote:
> Eh?
>
> *I* didn't make the comments about Andrew Edmunds at that site!

Corey, it seems you have settled down now.  I haven't seen you crossposting 
for a day or two.  I hope this is a new dawn with you:)

We will be very happy to talk about food with you.

New start?  Tell is a little about yourself and what you like to cook:)

-- 
Real friendship is shown in times of trouble;
prosperity is full of friends.
* Euripedes

In message , Richard 
Dixon  writes
>June Hughes  wrote in
>news:JsjZdcHkvxtIFwAc@theacct.demon.co.uk:
>
>> Well worth it, Richard.  Several of us here have been twice but it
>> only works for small parties.  BTW - I still haven't made it to Scoop.
>
>Right - let's do a deal: you do scoop, I'll do AE. Sold?
>
>Richard

Consider it done:)
-- 
June Hughes

JonH@Underthewagon.net said 

>  For some reason, the
> smokers tend to be better company than the religiously non smoking
> crowd.

many non smokers are not "religious" about it, i'm a lifetime non smoker
who feels smokers are being hit a little to hard, people like nutty horne
would probably only be satisfied if smokers (and drivers) were crucified.
Having said that tobacoo smoke *is* pretty unpleasant to be around and
given its a major health issue I cant see how its going to be possible to
tolerate it in somebodys workplace.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

congokid said 

>  I believe Westminster council 
> occasionally tried to force drinkers indoors again, but not very 
> successfully.

what a bunch of idiots Westminster are. They seem to think Soho should be
like Surrey and listen to the 10 people who live there who want it as such.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Graham said 

> A study of members of The Vegetarian Society found that they died violent 
> deaths more often than normal people.

murdered by people bored by being lectured?
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Richard Dixon said 

> As with tripadvisor, a lot of people I find are compelled to review a bad 
> experience, which makes me always take reviews tongue-in-cheek. The Anchor 
> and Hope gets some shockers of reviews but I love it dearly.

i often look at london eating, but many reviewers are clearly clueless, for
the Globe, many review the brazzerie thinking its the restaurant, for
instance. Elsewhere I read a review of El Bulli that complained there was a
lot of fish and they dont like fish, maybe Mcdonalds would have suited
better.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

In message <xdrhcve7gi4u$.1khk6iwxyiy87$.dlg@40tude.net>, Mike 
............  writes
>JonH@Underthewagon.net said
>
>>  For some reason, the
>> smokers tend to be better company than the religiously non smoking
>> crowd.
>
>many non smokers are not "religious" about it, i'm a lifetime non smoker
>who feels smokers are being hit a little to hard, people like nutty horne
>would probably only be satisfied if smokers (and drivers) were crucified.
>Having said that tobacoo smoke *is* pretty unpleasant to be around and
>given its a major health issue I cant see how its going to be possible to
>tolerate it in somebodys workplace.

What's with the 'nutty horne'?  I've always found him to be far from 
nutty, if a little irascible at times, but we all have our faults, even 
thee and me and even thoo's are a bit odd:)))
Running for cover.
-- 
June Hughes

June Hughes said 

> What's with the 'nutty horne'?

OK, you asked. (the first part is rant but theres an interesting point at
the end...possibly) IMHO somebody is entitled to killfile people who spam
troll abuse whatever. If you killfile somebody because they point out
things which are factual but you dont want to hear *and* you hold things to
be true because it suits your position rather than being realistic, you
qualify as "nutty" in my opinion.
Its mostly been in the travel group (when it still functioned), but stuff
like it being perfectly practical to carry home a weekly family shop in a
rucksack was here I think, (when challenged we were told weekly shops are
"uncivilised" anyway, which I found both smug and offensive). It reached
surreal levels with taking landscape photos in the Scottish Highlands using
a bus rather than a car (think daily bus, get off using ESP to know a good
spot was round the corner, take photo, wait for next bus..........) . I was
told he had met a photographer who arrived by bus so it must be practical,
no doubt without a weeks luggage and in the city........

I eventually realised (from his posts) he lives in the city centre and
pretty much only visits cities ("nearly all roads have pavements" was a
clue)  and doesnt have children or a wish to do country things like, lets
say windsurfing or birdwatching. So for him not driving makes sense. (He
knows perfectly well it doesnt work well in the suburbs without a car as he
moved back in from them when it didnt work - posting an excuse for the move
up front and out of the blue) 
IMHO lecturing others about "stupid drivers" when they do not wish to be in
city centres all the time (not to mention denying flying causes noise
pollution) is plain dishonest/daft.
As you can tell his killfiling me has offended me!!

*Possibly interesting bit*
For many many years I have puzzled over modern art, nutty hornes preference
for his own perceptions over facts has nudged me more towards thinking its
mostly nonsense (hes a artist of sorts). Aided by the low standard of
technical execution (plain sloppy) of some Picassos i was looking at
recently. After the Picassos I left feeling photography did to art what
science has (or should have) done to religion.
I would still be interested to hear opposite views though, I can see the
point of Guernica (if the symbolism is explained to me) but I cant see the
point of les demoiselles de avignon.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

> but I cant see the 
>point of les demoiselles de avignon.


or polenta! :-)
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Op Wed, 3 Sep 2008 10:45:48 +0100 frommelde Mike ............ :

> *Possibly interesting bit*
> For many many years I have puzzled over modern art, nutty hornes preference
> for his own perceptions over facts has nudged me more towards thinking its
> mostly nonsense (hes a artist of sorts). Aided by the low standard of
> technical execution (plain sloppy) of some Picassos i was looking at
> recently. After the Picassos I left feeling photography did to art what
> science has (or should have) done to religion.
> I would still be interested to hear opposite views though, I can see the
> point of Guernica (if the symbolism is explained to me) but I cant see the
> point of les demoiselles de avignon.

Eh, well... 

No. I won't go there again. Not with you.

Mainly because you do not practise what you preach. You blame Horne for
ranting and raving, whereas you are paint yourself as the Voice Of Reason,
which you are patently *not*. You give as good as you get in the flames you
have with the likes of Horne.

-- 
*** Waldo ***
A radioactive cat has eighteen half-lives.

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 08:27:47 +0100, Mike ............ wrote in post :
<news:1155j5hi6aat1.1rqvf3bx1e94u$.dlg@40tude.net> :

> Graham said 
> 
>> A study of members of The Vegetarian Society found that they died violent 
>> deaths more often than normal people.
> 
> murdered by people bored by being lectured?

 lol! I can sympathise. 

been on holiday, Mike? welcome back. 
-- 
Tim C.  
google.groups killfiled to reduce spam
email address munged.

In article <hfmrdc38nzal$.1p61cxbup0ter$.dlg@40tude.net>, Mike 
............  writes

>what a bunch of idiots Westminster are. They seem to think Soho should be
>like Surrey and listen to the 10 people who live there who want it as such.

I think Soho has something like 5,000 residents.

Of course, although presumably they're living smack in the centre of a 
huge city by choice, they've also paid handsomely for the privilege, so 
it's not surprising they try and veto every new development that might 
make the experience any less pleasant.

I've lived above pubs both in Ireland (in a small town) and London 
(Marylebone). Evening drinkers didn't bother me, even if, as in 
Marylebone on warm summer days, they congregated on the pavement. Many 
times I was among them.

However, huge crowds of people getting very drunk well into the night - 
as they tend to do in Soho - can get a bit much, especially when they 
pee, puke or fornicate loudly on your doorstep, so I can't blame 
residents for piping up.

But when Westminster Council started confiscating pavement tables and 
chairs from cafes in the mid-90s, I have a feeling that might have been 
a restriction too far for residents, who one would expect to want to 
hang on to their cafe culture.
-- 
congokid
Eating out in London? Read my tips...
http://congokid.com

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:22:20 +0200, Waldo Centini wrote in post :
<news:lcyev9zcgxyp$.rxu40bv7bka1.dlg@40tude.net> :

>> I would still be interested to hear opposite views though,

that's the bit that makes Mike and David different, imo.
And Mike then does, at least, discuss any points of view brought up, even
if he still can't see them. David doesn't seem to try very hard.

-- 
Tim C.  
google.groups killfiled to reduce spam
email address munged.

Op Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:57:25 +0200 frommelde Tim C. :

>>> I would still be interested to hear opposite views though,
> 
> that's the bit that makes Mike and David different, imo.
> And Mike then does, at least, discuss any points of view brought up, even
> if he still can't see them. David doesn't seem to try very hard.

In my opinion, neither does Mike. But like I said before, I won't go there.

-- 
*** Waldo ***
I was married by a judge. I should have asked for a jury.

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:09:54 +0200, Waldo Centini wrote in post :
<news:gu3d2j2xr4q4.101own7to1dc2.dlg@40tude.net> :

> Op Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:57:25 +0200 frommelde Tim C. :
> 
>>>> I would still be interested to hear opposite views though,
>> 
>> that's the bit that makes Mike and David different, imo.
>> And Mike then does, at least, discuss any points of view brought up, even
>> if he still can't see them. David doesn't seem to try very hard.
> 
> In my opinion, neither does Mike. But like I said before, I won't go there.

we'll agree to disagree? 

-- 
Tim C.  
google.groups killfiled to reduce spam
email address munged.

Op Wed, 3 Sep 2008 13:22:47 +0200 frommelde Tim C. :

>> In my opinion, neither does Mike. But like I said before, I won't go there.
> 
> we'll agree to disagree?

Aye.

-- 
*** Waldo ***
Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art.

congokid said 

> and listen to the 10 people who live there who want it as such.
> 
> I think Soho has something like 5,000 residents.

no doubt, but its probably 10 that want it like Surrey! :-)
 
> Of course, although presumably they're living smack in the centre of a 
> huge city by choice, 

you have to assume that, dont you.

>they've also paid handsomely for the privilege, so 
> it's not surprising they try and veto every new development that might 
> make the experience any less pleasant.

I would have thought the nightlife is the point of Soho? 

> I've lived above pubs both in Ireland (in a small town) and London 
> (Marylebone). Evening drinkers didn't bother me, even if, as in 
> Marylebone on warm summer days, they congregated on the pavement. Many 
> times I was among them.
> 
> However, huge crowds of people getting very drunk well into the night - 
> as they tend to do in Soho - can get a bit much, especially when they 
> pee, puke or fornicate loudly on your doorstep, so I can't blame 
> residents for piping up.

I agree, bad behavior, like public sex, throwing up, pissing on front doors
should always be addressed, in whatever town centre but not by wanting soho
to not attract nightlife seekers, which just isnt practical.
 
> But when Westminster Council started confiscating pavement tables and 
> chairs from cafes in the mid-90s, I have a feeling that might have been 
> a restriction too far for residents, who one would expect to want to 
> hang on to their cafe culture.

This is where i feel Westminster get it all wrong.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Tim C. said 

> been on holiday, Mike? welcome back.

No, sort of moving. August isnt my favourite time for holidays, too many
people, high prices etc but I did manage a couple of days (wait for it
folks) at, now where was it?...... oh yes...
.
.
.
.
El Bulli Hotel :-)
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

> but I cant see the 
>point of les demoiselles de avignon.


or polenta! :-)


my plot failed, Guisi was supposed to say you need to add salt, then I was
going to say I took Picasso with a big pinch of salt :-)
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Waldo Centini" <"waldocentini[NOSPAM] wrote:
> Op Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:57:25 +0200 frommelde Tim C. :
>
>>>> I would still be interested to hear opposite views though,
>>
>> that's the bit that makes Mike and David different, imo.
>> And Mike then does, at least, discuss any points of view brought up,
>> even if he still can't see them. David doesn't seem to try very hard.
>
> In my opinion, neither does Mike. But like I said before, I won't go
> there.

... and I like them both!

-- 
Real friendship is shown in times of trouble;
prosperity is full of friends.
* Euripedes

Tim C. said 

> we'll agree to disagree?

wheres the fun in that? :-)
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Ophelia said 

> ... and I like them both!

well, thank you! :-)
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Op Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:43:13 +0100 frommelde Ophelia :

> ... and I like them both!

I won't hold it against you, Oh Mighty Thwappette!

-- 
*** Waldo ***
A sweater is a garment worn by a child when his mother feels 
chilly.

Tim C. said 

> discuss any points of view brought up, even
> if he still can't see them

The thing about modern art is that some pretty skilled people like the
saachis like it, so that proves to me there must be *something* in it.

However, those Picassos did nothing at all. He didnt seem to have made any
effort, crude painting with sometimes drips running down, maybe thats the
point in some way I have no idea about?
 
Some stuff you see (the iron walls in the guggenheim Bilbao) is rather
attractive but always overhyped it seems to me - as for not being allowed
to make the mobiles move..... 
Both the Guggenheim and the Picasso museum were both nicer to look at than
the contents IMHO.

I find all that brown pre impressionist realist stuff a bit dull,
(presumably doing the photography role) impressionist stuff tends to look
nice as does a lot of modest recent realist painting (+ Francis Bacon) but
the rest......
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:45:55 +0100, Mike ............ wrote in post :
<news:gbi253hvknfk.b0ma0v6dv8e3.dlg@40tude.net> :

>> we'll agree to disagree?
> 
> wheres the fun in that? :-)

good point. 
I came here for a good argument. 

-- 
Tim C.  
google.groups killfiled to reduce spam
email address munged.

In message , Waldo Centini 
<"waldocentini[NOSPAM]"@gmail.com> writes
>Op Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:57:25 +0200 frommelde Tim C. :
>
>>>> I would still be interested to hear opposite views though,
>>
>> that's the bit that makes Mike and David different, imo.
>> And Mike then does, at least, discuss any points of view brought up, even
>> if he still can't see them. David doesn't seem to try very hard.
>
>In my opinion, neither does Mike. But like I said before, I won't go there.
>
As I understand it, David is away a lot and doesn't have a great deal of 
time to go into stuff at length, a bit similar to my situation, so 
sometimes he has to be short and to the point.
-- 
June Hughes

In message <1vjjj0db1s8rk$.7goca3gk913t.dlg@40tude.net>, Mike 
............  writes
>Tim C. said
>
>> discuss any points of view brought up, even
>> if he still can't see them
>
>The thing about modern art is that some pretty skilled people like the
>saachis like it, so that proves to me there must be *something* in it.
>
>However, those Picassos did nothing at all. He didnt seem to have made any
>effort, crude painting with sometimes drips running down, maybe thats the
>point in some way I have no idea about?
>
I rather like Picasso.  If you look at some of the stuff he did when he 
very young, it is brilliant but that is not what he is famous for.

>Some stuff you see (the iron walls in the guggenheim Bilbao) is rather
>attractive but always overhyped it seems to me - as for not being allowed
>to make the mobiles move.....
>Both the Guggenheim and the Picasso museum were both nicer to look at than
>the contents IMHO.
>
>I find all that brown pre impressionist realist stuff a bit dull,
>(presumably doing the photography role) impressionist stuff tends to look
>nice as does a lot of modest recent realist painting (+ Francis Bacon) but
>the rest......

Horses for courses, eh, Mike?
-- 
June Hughes

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:44:02 +0100, Mike ............ wrote in post :
<news:w9el5jg5eleg.13pxzdc94os65.dlg@40tude.net> :

>> but I cant see the 
>>point of les demoiselles de avignon.
> 
> or polenta! :-)
> 
> my plot failed, Guisi was supposed to say you need to add salt, then I was
> going to say I took Picasso with a big pinch of salt :-)

 lol good try though. 

-- 
Tim C.  
google.groups killfiled to reduce spam
email address munged.

Ophelia wrote:
> Waldo Centini" <"waldocentini[NOSPAM] wrote:
>> Op Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:57:25 +0200 frommelde Tim C. :
>>
>>>>> I would still be interested to hear opposite views though,
>>> that's the bit that makes Mike and David different, imo.
>>> And Mike then does, at least, discuss any points of view brought up,
>>> even if he still can't see them. David doesn't seem to try very hard.
>> In my opinion, neither does Mike. But like I said before, I won't go
>> there.
> 
> ... and I like them both!
> 
As do I.
But they do seem to bring out the worst in each other.

Tim C. said 

>> wheres the fun in that? :-)
> 
> good point. 
> I came here for a good argument.

ah hahh, no, you came here for an argument.............................
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

June Hughes said 

>  If you look at some of the stuff he did when he 
> very young, it is brilliant but that is not what he is famous for.

yes, its obvious from his early work he was competent and chose to paint
like that, the question is why!
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

June Hughes said 

> As I understand it, David is away a lot and doesn't have a great deal of 
> time to go into stuff at length,

on the contrary, he has a lot of time at airports and on trains and will
post forever when he wants, (he was accused of using the travel group as a
chatroom by one of the departing "serious" posters)
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

"Mike ............"  ha scritto nel 
messaggio news:1wbouy7e96lje.kd8ah46f24kv$.dlg@40tude.net...
> June Hughes said
>
>>  If you look at some of the stuff he did when he
>> very young, it is brilliant but that is not what he is famous for.
>
> yes, its obvious from his early work he was competent and chose to paint
> like that, the question is why!
> -- 
> Mike .......

Puhleeeze!  It hurts when my eyes toll back that far.

Giusi said 

>> yes, its obvious from his early work he was competent and chose to paint
>> like that, the question is why!
 
> Puhleeeze!  It hurts when my eyes toll back that far.

heehee, well ....why? LDDA is just ugly, what does it achieve?
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Mike ............ said 

> It hurts when my eyes toll back that far.

alternative answer, you need to get a bell.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Mike ............ wrote:
> June Hughes said 
> 
>>  If you look at some of the stuff he did when he 
>> very young, it is brilliant but that is not what he is famous for.
> 
> yes, its obvious from his early work he was competent and chose to paint
> like that, the question is why!

Many years ago, one of my uncles was filming an interview with Picasso 
for the BBC.
They were sitting talking later, and Uncle (who was a competent amateur 
painter) asked him why he painted the stuff he did.  Picasso said that 
he had children in expensive private schools, and it paid the bills....
(Well, he actually said it in French, but that was the gist if it.)

S Viemeister said 

> Picasso said that 
> he had children in expensive private schools, and it paid the bills....

i know he churned out a lot of stuff of questionable quality to get cash
(or so the experts say) but I of course still cant see why people wanted to
buy it in the first place. 
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 08:36:11 -0400, S Viemeister wrote in post :
<news:6i7eluFpiqgtU1@mid.individual.net> :

>> ... and I like them both!
>> 
> As do I.
> But they do seem to bring out the worst in each other.

That's the best bit.  :-)
-- 
Tim C.  
google.groups killfiled to reduce spam
email address munged.

In message <13f95r20yea3q$.h4s4yculjwf7.dlg@40tude.net>, Waldo Centini 
<"waldocentini[NOSPAM]"@gmail.com> writes
>Op Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:43:13 +0100 frommelde Ophelia :
>
>> ... and I like them both!
>
>I won't hold it against you, Oh Mighty Thwappette!
>

You are sailing pretty close to the wind, Waldo:)
-- 
June Hughes

June Hughes wrote:
> In message <13f95r20yea3q$.h4s4yculjwf7.dlg@40tude.net>, Waldo Centini
> <"waldocentini[NOSPAM]"@gmail.com> writes
>> Op Wed, 3 Sep 2008 12:43:13 +0100 frommelde Ophelia :
>>
>>> ... and I like them both!
>>
>> I won't hold it against you, Oh Mighty Thwappette!
>>
>
> You are sailing pretty close to the wind, Waldo:)

Yers, the lowly Thwapee is pushing his luck:)

-- 
Real friendship is shown in times of trouble;
prosperity is full of friends.
* Euripedes

In message <19z9c75wy90xh$.dlinkq5ehxgz$.dlg@40tude.net>, Mike 
............  writes
>S Viemeister said
>
>> Picasso said that
>> he had children in expensive private schools, and it paid the bills....
>
>i know he churned out a lot of stuff of questionable quality to get cash
>(or so the experts say) but I of course still cant see why people wanted to
>buy it in the first place.

Snobs?
-- 
June Hughes

June Hughes said 

>>i know he churned out a lot of stuff of questionable quality to get cash
>>(or so the experts say) but I of course still cant see why people wanted to
>>buy it in the first place.
> 
> Snobs?

does that fit? Werent the artists of Picassos set reviled at first and
poor? Or was that the impressionists? Somebody must have decided it was
worthwhile and started buying it.
No doubt a lot of people do that *now*, I'm sure I wasnt the only person in
the Picasso museum wondering what it was all about, but nobody says
anything because they dont want to look philistines. I did read a fairly
long explanation of why lDdA was good, IIRC it made no sense to me. 
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

"Mike ............"  wrote in message 
news:k84q1gtpj0y3$.z5h5bvhuqchd$.dlg@40tude.net...
> June Hughes said
>
>>>i know he churned out a lot of stuff of questionable quality to get cash
>>>(or so the experts say) but I of course still cant see why people wanted 
>>>to
>>>buy it in the first place.
>>
>> Snobs?
>
> does that fit? Werent the artists of Picassos set reviled at first and
> poor? Or was that the impressionists? Somebody must have decided it was
> worthwhile and started buying it.
> No doubt a lot of people do that *now*, I'm sure I wasnt the only person 
> in
> the Picasso museum wondering what it was all about, but nobody says
> anything because they dont want to look philistines. I did read a fairly
> long explanation of why lDdA was good, IIRC it made no sense to me.
> -- 
I also scratch my head at times.  I saw an "Installation" at the art gallery 
in the local museum where they sometimes put on major exhibitions.  This 
piece of "art" consisted of a small room filled with junk (literally 
junk!!!).  It resembled a back street junk shop where the elderly owner 
hasn't organised anything in many years.
And they paid someone for this with public money!!!!
And then there was this:
http://foros.fox.presidencia.gob.mx/read.php?5,135464

Graham

Graham said 

> And then there was this:
> http://foros.fox.presidencia.gob.mx/read.php?5,135464

I could do that! Theres certainly a lot of nonsense goes on, like that
silent piece of music. I remain unconvinced what % isnt.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Graham said 

> This 
> piece of "art" consisted of a small room filled with junk

well, I could take a photo of a load of junk if I thought the arrangement
was attractive.
My problem is that much of Picassos cubist work is ugly and I know at least
some artists say beauty isnt the point, thats probably where I part company
with them. For me photography/painting is about finding the beauty in
things (unless making some broadly "political" point about poverty or
whatever).
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

"Mike ............"  ha scritto nel 
messaggio news:l0553q9z7bt5.uvmivon8iblx.dlg@40tude.net...
> Graham said
>
>> This
>> piece of "art" consisted of a small room filled with junk
>
> well, I could take a photo of a load of junk if I thought the arrangement
> was attractive.
> My problem is that much of Picassos cubist work is ugly and I know at 
> least
> some artists say beauty isnt the point, thats probably where I part 
> company
> with them. For me photography/painting is about finding the beauty in
> things (unless making some broadly "political" point about poverty or
> whatever).
> -- 
> Mike .......

That's you.  It's not me.
The things Graham is talking about seem more political than artistic to me.

The message <bcs04q11pg49.owewxgwt65qb$.dlg@40tude.net>
from "Mike ............"  contains
these words:

> June Hughes said 

> > As I understand it, David is away a lot and doesn't have a great deal of 
> > time to go into stuff at length,

> on the contrary, he has a lot of time at airports and on trains and will
> post forever when he wants, (he was accused of using the travel group as a
> chatroom by one of the departing "serious" posters)

   Well, he'd pass unnoticed here then.

   Janet

Janet Baraclough said 

>> on the contrary, he has a lot of time at airports and on trains and will
>> post forever when he wants, (he was accused of using the travel group as a
>> chatroom by one of the departing "serious" posters)
> 
>    Well, he'd pass unnoticed here then.

very true
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

In article <1xkxgwqblox9f$.zq868upb9u2i.dlg@40tude.net>,
   Mike ............  wrote:
> congokid said 

> > and listen to the 10 people who live there who want it as such.
> > 
> > I think Soho has something like 5,000 residents.

> no doubt, but its probably 10 that want it like Surrey! :-)
>  
> > Of course, although presumably they're living smack in the centre of a 
> > huge city by choice, 

> you have to assume that, dont you.

Some people simply want to live within walking distance of their work. I
rather feel that they must decide how far to compromise their living 
environment to achieve that.

It's a bit like those who go to another country to live and then want to
change it to make its customs like the ones they left; if you go to live
somewhere you broadly accept what the natives do.

> >they've also paid handsomely for the privilege, so 
> > it's not surprising they try and veto every new development that might 
> > make the experience any less pleasant.

> I would have thought the nightlife is the point of Soho? 

See above.

> > I've lived above pubs both in Ireland (in a small town) and London 
> > (Marylebone). Evening drinkers didn't bother me, even if, as in 
> > Marylebone on warm summer days, they congregated on the pavement. Many 
> > times I was among them.
> > 
> > However, huge crowds of people getting very drunk well into the night - 
> > as they tend to do in Soho - can get a bit much, especially when they 
> > pee, puke or fornicate loudly on your doorstep, so I can't blame 
> > residents for piping up.

> I agree, bad behavior, like public sex, throwing up, pissing on front doors
> should always be addressed, in whatever town centre but not by wanting soho
> to not attract nightlife seekers, which just isnt practical.

Yes, but the problem is you have to wait for the police to come. You can't
deal with it yourself because you'd be arrested instead of the "criminal" -
or sued for some assault or other.
>  
> > But when Westminster Council started confiscating pavement tables and 
> > chairs from cafes in the mid-90s, I have a feeling that might have been 
> > a restriction too far for residents, who one would expect to want to 
> > hang on to their cafe culture.

> This is where i feel Westminster get it all wrong.

Yesp. Just get there quickly and deal with those who are being a nuisance.
Unfortunatelky that doesn't seem to be achievable in this day and age.

Jane

-- 

Jane Gillett   :   j.gillett@higherstert.co.uk   :   Totnes, Devon.

In article ,
   June Hughes  wrote:
> In message <19z9c75wy90xh$.dlinkq5ehxgz$.dlg@40tude.net>, Mike 
> ............  writes
> >S Viemeister said
> >
> >> Picasso said that
> >> he had children in expensive private schools, and it paid the bills....
> >
> >i know he churned out a lot of stuff of questionable quality to get cash
> >(or so the experts say) but I of course still cant see why people wanted to
> >buy it in the first place.

> Snobs?

Where to get into this discussion? Perhaps this is as good as any.

To me, art is what talks to me. If I see it and it gives me a strong
message that's art. Applies to other media as well.

If it is beautifully executed, that's good draughtsmanship. It may or may
not talk to me; if it doesn't then, for me, it's not "art" (well, not good
art) however well or skillfully produced.

Maybe I have to learn the particular language that the artist is using.
Maybe what is art for one person is not for another ie the viewer is part
of the "transaction".

I guess there are several reasons why people buy pictures. Personal liking
as above is one; wealth or investment is another. To display a picture by a
well-known artist will impress your associates now; to own something which
increases in financial value is money for the future and good business if
you sell it at the right time. Either may make the owner feel good. Some
good art buyers are good at knowing what will sell at good prices in the
future in other fields too; it's part of being successful in business.

Cheers
Jane

Cheers
Jane

-- 

Jane Gillett   :   j.gillett@higherstert.co.uk   :   Totnes, Devon.

In article <1155j5hi6aat1.1rqvf3bx1e94u$.dlg@40tude.net>,
   Mike ............  wrote:
> Graham said 

> > A study of members of The Vegetarian Society found that they died violent 
> > deaths more often than normal people.

> murdered by people bored by being lectured?

Probably. Nothing to do with being vegearian though; any equivalent society
that tries to enforce a way of life on others is likely to engender that
sort of response.

Cheers
Jane

-- 

Jane Gillett   :   j.gillett@higherstert.co.uk   :   Totnes, Devon.

Jane Gillett said 

> Some people simply want to live within walking distance of their work. I
> rather feel that they must decide how far to compromise their living 
> environment to achieve that.

Soho is a small area, if you want quiet + walking to work you buy a flat in
one of the new developments to the east, or anywhere but Soho!
 
> It's a bit like those who go to another country to live and then want to
> change it to make its customs like the ones they left; if you go to live
> somewhere you broadly accept what the natives do.

well yes, thats how I see it. If you want to stroll down to your "local"
and find yourself in conversation with a sex worker or an art director,
Soho is ideal. If you want tranquility its hopeless.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Jane Gillett said 

> To me, art is what talks to me. If I see it and it gives me a strong
> message that's art. Applies to other media as well.

As good a logic as I can think of.
 
> If it is beautifully executed, that's good draughtsmanship. It may or may
> not talk to me; if it doesn't then, for me, it's not "art" (well, not good
> art) however well or skillfully produced.

this is art v craft.
 
> Maybe I have to learn the particular language that the artist is using.
> Maybe what is art for one person is not for another ie the viewer is part
> of the "transaction".

Yes, theres a whole load of symbolism is some visual art and "literature"
is full of references to other "literature", mind you, so is the Simpsons
at a popular level. Sometimes life is too short to worry about decoding it.
 
> I guess there are several reasons why people buy pictures. Personal liking
> as above is one; wealth or investment is another. To display a picture by a
> well-known artist will impress your associates now; to own something which
> increases in financial value is money for the future and good business if
> you sell it at the right time. Either may make the owner feel good. Some
> good art buyers are good at knowing what will sell at good prices in the
> future in other fields too; it's part of being successful in business.

the big money in art distorts it I think.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Waldo Centini <"waldocentini[NOSPAM]"@gmail.com> wrote in
news:lcyev9zcgxyp$.rxu40bv7bka1.dlg@40tude.net: 

> You blame Horne
> for ranting and raving, whereas you are paint yourself as the Voice Of
> Reason, which you are patently *not*. You give as good as you get in
> the flames you have with the likes of Horne.

A common trait of Usenet, so I've found...!

Richard

"Mike ............"  wrote in
news:uyx8151ah4jv.k3euf4x8ulzg.dlg@40tude.net: 

> i often look at london eating, but many reviewers are clearly
> clueless, for the Globe, many review the brazzerie thinking its the
> restaurant, for instance. Elsewhere I read a review of El Bulli that
> complained there was a lot of fish and they dont like fish, maybe
> Mcdonalds would have suited better.

Snobbish as it may sound (and I guess that makes me a snob!), but bad 
grammar and spelling linked with a bad review is usually a sign to ignore 
the review - as do people that give a restaurant a 1 for food, ambience, 
lighting and decor just because a waiter flashed them a nasty look. Often a 
review will say more about the reviewer than the restaurant !!

Richard

Op Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:40:10 GMT frommelde Richard Dixon :

> A common trait of Usenet, so I've found...!

'fraid I have to disagree with you there.

I believe that over ninety percent of all usenet posters are decent, caring
people who want nothing else than to post about their hobbies and
interests.

But the remaining less than ten percent is quite dominant in its presence,
if not domineering, so that it is easily forgotten that there is a vast
majority of people who seek nothing here but a harmless bit of fun.


-- 
*** Waldo ***
On a clear disk you can seek forever.

Richard Dixon said 

>> You blame Horne
>> for ranting and raving, whereas you are paint yourself as the Voice Of
>> Reason, which you are patently *not*. You give as good as you get in
>> the flames you have with the likes of Horne.
> 
> A common trait of Usenet, so I've found...!

I don't remember  why I killfiled WC, but the above gives me a clue. 
For the record, I don't accuse Horne of "ranting and raving", I accuse him
of dishonest argument and ignoring facts that dont suit his position, so
lets at least try and be a vaguely accurate. "paint myself as the voice of
reason"? I argue honestly and listen to opposing views, that's all.  
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Richard Dixon said 

> Elsewhere I read a review of El Bulli that
>> complained there was a lot of fish and they dont like fish, maybe
>> Mcdonalds would have suited better.
> 
> Snobbish as it may sound (and I guess that makes me a snob!), but bad 
> grammar and spelling

i always ignore spelling and grammar, it only tells you a persons
background, not if they are a complete arse or not and the educated classes
are as full of arses as anywhere, many of whom succeed in life because
their patina of respectability and nice suit gets them through.

> linked with a bad review is usually a sign to ignore 
> the review - as do people that give a restaurant a 1 for food, ambience, 
> lighting and decor just because a waiter flashed them a nasty look. Often a 
> review will say more about the reviewer than the restaurant !!

It certainly can! 
I try and look for some indication of knowledge and of seeing pros and cons
in a situation. I have read many, many reviews of places I know that bear
no resemblance to my experience.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Waldo Centini" <"waldocentini[NOSPAM] wrote:
> Op Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:40:10 GMT frommelde Richard Dixon :
>
>> A common trait of Usenet, so I've found...!
>
> 'fraid I have to disagree with you there.
>
> I believe that over ninety percent of all usenet posters are decent,
> caring people who want nothing else than to post about their hobbies
> and interests.
>
> But the remaining less than ten percent is quite dominant in its
> presence, if not domineering, so that it is easily forgotten that
> there is a vast majority of people who seek nothing here but a
> harmless bit of fun.

'cept when you are bad and need a thwap!

-- 
Real friendship is shown in times of trouble;
prosperity is full of friends.
* Euripedes

Ophelia said 

>> But the remaining less than ten percent is quite dominant in its
>> presence, if not domineering, so that it is easily forgotten that
>> there is a vast majority of people who seek nothing here but a
>> harmless bit of fun.
> 
> 'cept when you are bad and need a thwap!

a "harmless bit of fun" includes arguing about food and stuff IMHO. Seems
to me some people dont like that. I never regarded arguments with horne as
"flames" but merely ways of clarifying issues until he lost the plot. I
think all NGS have 10% of the people posting 90% of the posts, in groups
where i'm in the 90%, say gardening, it worries me not at all that the
regulars have whatever esoteric discussions, why do people want usenet
shaped "just so", to thier likes?
No doubt that is the thinking of whoever is the troll? Or maybe they are
just a loon :-)
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Loony Mike.   :-)

-- 
Tim C.  
google.groups killfiled to reduce spam
email address munged.

Tim C. said 

> Loony Mike.   :-)

very likely! :-)
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

In message , Richard 
Dixon  writes
>"Mike ............"  wrote in
>news:uyx8151ah4jv.k3euf4x8ulzg.dlg@40tude.net:
>
>> i often look at london eating, but many reviewers are clearly
>> clueless, for the Globe, many review the brazzerie thinking its the
>> restaurant, for instance. Elsewhere I read a review of El Bulli that
>> complained there was a lot of fish and they dont like fish, maybe
>> Mcdonalds would have suited better.
>
>Snobbish as it may sound (and I guess that makes me a snob!), but bad
>grammar and spelling linked with a bad review is usually a sign to ignore
>the review - as do people that give a restaurant a 1 for food, ambience,
>lighting and decor just because a waiter flashed them a nasty look. Often a
>review will say more about the reviewer than the restaurant !!
>
>Richard

Um.  Talking about waiters and dirty looks, have you seen 'Waiter Rant' 
by 'A Waiter'?  It is very readable although I have yet to look at his 
blog, which started the idea in the first place.
-- 
June Hughes

In message , June Hughes 
 writes
>In message , Richard 
>Dixon  writes
>>"Mike ............"  wrote in
>>news:uyx8151ah4jv.k3euf4x8ulzg.dlg@40tude.net:
>>
>>> i often look at london eating, but many reviewers are clearly
>>> clueless, for the Globe, many review the brazzerie thinking its the
>>> restaurant, for instance. Elsewhere I read a review of El Bulli that
>>> complained there was a lot of fish and they dont like fish, maybe
>>> Mcdonalds would have suited better.
>>
>>Snobbish as it may sound (and I guess that makes me a snob!), but bad
>>grammar and spelling linked with a bad review is usually a sign to ignore
>>the review - as do people that give a restaurant a 1 for food, ambience,
>>lighting and decor just because a waiter flashed them a nasty look. Often a
>>review will say more about the reviewer than the restaurant !!
>>
>>Richard
>
>Um.  Talking about waiters and dirty looks, have you seen 'Waiter Rant' 
>by 'A Waiter'?  It is very readable although I have yet to look at his 
>blog, which started the idea in the first place.

Sorry

www.waiterrant.net
-- 
June Hughes

"June Hughes"  ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:mDcimfCtQPwIFwuI@theacct.demon.co.uk...
> In message , Richard 
> Dixon  writes
>>"Mike ............"  wrote in
>>news:uyx8151ah4jv.k3euf4x8ulzg.dlg@40tude.net:
>>
>>> i often look at london eating, but many reviewers are clearly
>>> clueless, for the Globe, many review the brazzerie thinking its the
>>> restaurant, for instance. Elsewhere I read a review of El Bulli that
>>> complained there was a lot of fish and they dont like fish, maybe
>>> Mcdonalds would have suited better.
>>
>>Snobbish as it may sound (and I guess that makes me a snob!), but bad
>>grammar and spelling linked with a bad review is usually a sign to ignore
>>the review - as do people that give a restaurant a 1 for food, ambience,
>>lighting and decor just because a waiter flashed them a nasty look. Often 
>>a
>>review will say more about the reviewer than the restaurant !!
>>
>>Richard
>
> Um.  Talking about waiters and dirty looks, have you seen 'Waiter Rant' by 
> 'A Waiter'?  It is very readable although I have yet to look at his blog, 
> which started the idea in the first place.
> -- 
> June Hughes

I have read the blog for a couple of years,  It makes even more pointed my 
feeling that the whole voluntary tipping system is rotten.

June Hughes said 

> Sorry
> 
> www.waiterrant.net

the recent stuff is all about his star status!

"But people hate tipping for another reason. They¢re aghast that they have
to subsidize a restaurant¢s employment costs." 

Eh? Who else but the customers are going to pay the employment costs?

"I recently wrote a tongue-in-cheek story for a UK magazine that poked fun
at British people for being bad tippers. The Queen¢s subjects are nice
enough human beings but, when visiting the US, they¢re usually unaware that
the customary tip at a restaurant is 15-20% of the bill and unwittingly
leave a substandard gratuity. When you explain this to a Briton (or any
other member of the European Union) they¢re shocked that American waiters
depend on tips for the bulk of their income"

I'm surprised he picks on Brits, (but I suppose we wanted a wind up
article) we after all expect to tip 10%, while I understand some countries
are used to tipping very little, like spain, where i was tipping 10% but
keep getting told it should be just a few coins or round up. (The latter
seems acceptable when ive done it).
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

Giusi said 

> I have read the blog for a couple of years,  It makes even more pointed my 
> feeling that the whole voluntary tipping system is rotten.

The US should obviously put the full price on the menu. I notice here many
places are both pre adding the service to your bill and upping it to 12%.

But its good to have the option if service is bad. One quirk is that if you
eat in a pub you don't tip but some pubs are nowadays indistinguishable
from restaurants.
-- 
Mike .......
Google-groups and excessive xposts killfiled (known posters whitelisted)
Remove clothing to email

In message <1ejnbd21d6y2m$.1t094e2057ja5$.dlg@40tude.net>, Loony Mike 
............  writes
>June Hughes said
>
>> Sorry
>>
>> www.waiterrant.net
>
>the recent stuff is all about his star status!
>
>"But people hate tipping for another reason. They‚re aghast that they have
>to subsidize a restaurant‚s employment costs."
>
>Eh? Who else but the customers are going to pay the employment costs?
>
>"I recently wrote a tongue-in-cheek story for a UK magazine that poked fun
>at British people for being bad tippers. The Queen‚s subjects are nice
>enough human beings but, when visiting the US, they‚re usually unaware that
>the customary tip at a restaurant is 15-20% of the bill and unwittingly
>leave a substandard gratuity. When you explain this to a Briton (or any
>other member of the European Union) they‚re shocked that American waiters
>depend on tips for the bulk of their income"
>
>I'm surprised he picks on Brits, (but I suppose we wanted a wind up
>article) we after all expect to tip 10%, while I understand some countries
>are used to tipping very little, like spain, where i was tipping