| Author |
Message |
    
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3062
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 05:02 pm: | 
|
Went to the library. Our system doesn't have any older editions of Emily Post, Amy Vanderbilt, et.al.
However, I found a 1959 edition of Emily Post and a Vogue Guide to Etiquette dated 1949 in my local used bookstore.
You'll have to excuse the lack of an exact quote but I wasn't willing to pay $10 ea. for these books (if anyone wants to send me $20, I'll buy them for you and I'll quote exactly <g>).
In the Emily Post, it said that 15% - 20% was standard, but it also prefaced that by saying that it had risen from the standard 10% quoted in the previous edition (1950). So, according to Emily Post, by the end of the 50s, 15% was already in place. That means of course that according to Emily Post, 10% was standard as late as 1950.
But you think you've got it hard now? According to Vogue in 1949, tipping was a very complicated affair. There were ranges and number of people to consider. If your check was .50 or less, you should leave .15 to .25. There were ranges of amounts that you had to consider. As you got up the scale, you left a smaller percentage, until you got to the astronomical meals of $15 - $19, where you were advised to leave $2.50 - $3. Anything over that and you started calculating by the number of guests (the more guests, the higher the tip expressed in dollars, not percentages).
Of course, this was on top of the 10% that you were expected to leave the maitre de if they had provided a service to you (and ignoring of course things like the wine steward, captain, etc.)
If I come across anything else, I'll report in. |
ohioborn
Member
Username: ohioborn
Post Number: 170
Registered: 07-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 10:08 pm: |
|
Thanks for the information. One thing to remember is that Emily Post (born Emily Price), while born in Baltimore MD, she lived in NYC, and died in 1960. While I can concede the fact she has 15% in her 1959 book (as I trust Teleburst to reflect accurately what he found out), I also wonder if perhaps 15% was the norm then just in NYC (since that is where she lived), much as it is at least 20% now for average service in NYC. Perhaps while NYC went to an average of 15% in the later 50s, and 60's, maybe it is possible that many parts of the USA in the 50's and 60's were still treating 10% as the average, and 15% was in NYC due to its high cost of living.
I also visited the online version of the Emily Post Institute, who has guidelines for tipping. In that they list:
Wait service (sit down) 15-20% (pre-tax)
Wait Service (buffet) - 10%
Takeout No obligation, but 0% - 10% of the person went above normal service.
Bartender: $1 per drink, or 15-20% of tab
Tipping Jars: No obligation; tip occasionally if you are a regular or if the person went above normal service
So, tipping for takeout is listed there as "No Obligation (which many have stated here on this site), and 0-15% when service is above. So, I also think it is safe to say that many of us, who do not tip for takeout, are behaving correctly, according to the rules of etiquette, based on the Emily Post Institute (and the same goes for tipping jars).
It is also noteworthy to mention that this site listed the wait service percent at pre-tax (not post-tax), so I think that settles that discussion as well on what is acceptable. for pre-tax versus post-tax tipping. I realize many customers may calculate their tip post-tax, but if a server is going to calculate what percent the tip was they receive, they should do it on the pre-tax amount to determine the level of their tip versus service, or to compare what everyone gave them.
Thanks, Teleburst for looking into Emily Post as good source of tipping etiquette; now I think we all have a better perspective on what's proper for tipping. I plan on continuing to follow these guidelines. To find this resource, go to: http://www.emilypost.com/everyday/tips_on_tipping.htm |
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3063
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 03, 2009 - 11:01 pm: |
|
"One thing to remember is that Emily Post (born Emily Price), while born in Baltimore MD, she lived in NYC, and died in 1960. While I can concede the fact she has 15% in her 1959 book (as I trust Teleburst to reflect accurately what he found out), I also wonder if perhaps 15% was the norm then just in NYC (since that is where she lived), much as it is at least 20% now for average service in NYC".
That's certainly possible, but if that were the case, then the 10% from 1950 would also be high. And I don't think that this was the case.
I do wonder where 15% came from. 10% would seem to be a lot more logical than 15%. I've got a theory and it has to do with the post-war prosperity. This was the time where WWII veterans were buying houses with the GI Bill and it was the first real period in 20 years where we weren't in depression or in war. The middle class was being firmly established and perhaps people were trying to include the previous "servant class" into the fold (sort of unconciously, of course). And, of course, there is the chance that more "regular people" had been through the server experience for the first time (since it was sort of a boom time for restaurants) and "felt servers' pain" (so to speak).
I've never quibbled with pre-tax here. The reason that I use post-tax in my calculations is because it's the path of least resistance. Since most of my tips are credit cards, I just look at the charge amount and the tip and I do a mental calculation. It's sort of the same principle when someone asks a worker how much they make. Most will say "$12/hr" or "$40,000/yr". They don't back out the tax that they have to pay even though their salary minus tax is actually what they "make". The only time I really make it an issue is when someone leaves an already mediocre tip. If you leave me 12% on the final bill, you still aren't leaving me 15% on the pre-tax total. Having said that, when I say what percentages I make, I use post-tax. So when I say that I make around 18% pre-tipout on average, if I use your standard of pre-tax only, it's really more like a little under 21%. So I guess I can brag that I average over 20%. I had a couple of days in a row last week where I actually averaged almost 24% (I know because it's on my closing sales report and yes, it's figured on pre-tax). I still thought of them as a 21% nights. I didn't think of the $100 tip on $500 as a 21.7% tip - I thought of it as a 20% tip.
BTW, I used Emily Post because it was one of the only two books that I was able to actually put my hands on. But I certainly think that the Post organization, starting with Emily Post is very credible. I was hoping to find a book by Amy Vanderbilt, but alas, no joy. If I ever do, I'll throw it into the mix.
The Vogue thing was interesting. There was actually a small chart with price ranges and suggested tip ranges (no percentages). You almost needed a computer to figure it out <g>. I think that the percentage range is easier to work with. It's constant across the range of most dining. The only thing that is consistent with today is the idea that perhaps you should tip more than "average" when the bill is low (like under $10 in today's dollars - what would have been a $1.00 bill in 1950).
And most of the etiquette stuff comes out of the NYC area anyway. Amy Vanderbilt, Emily Post, Martha Stewart, the fashion magazines, The New York Times and The New Yorker Magazine - they all are based in and around NYC. The big exception of course is Judith Martin, a.k.a. Miss Manners, who has always been based in Washington D.C. |
vozveratu
Senior Member
Username: vozveratu
Post Number: 1443
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, September 04, 2009 - 07:46 am: |
|
Cool stuff. Thanks for taking the time, guys.
*clap* |
paid_up
Advanced Member
Username: paid_up
Post Number: 819
Registered: 01-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, September 04, 2009 - 11:53 am: |
|
10%. Yup, that's about right. |
kris
Member
Username: kris
Post Number: 185
Registered: 01-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, September 05, 2009 - 01:51 am: |
|
I have a vague memory of arguing with my father, back in the early 80's, that tips are 15%. I was looking in an entertainment book and reading to him that it said to tip 15% before the deduction. I think he had mentioned it was always 10%. I wasn't waiting tables then.
Maybe I should ask him about it. My feeling is that maybe Emily Post of NYC said tips are 15% back in the 70's but Joe Schmoe in middle America wasn't aware of it yet.
And perhaps, Paid Up is the last to know. :P |
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3075
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, September 05, 2009 - 02:59 pm: |
|
Well, *my* Joe Schmoe dad did. Back in the 60s. And he dined out *a lot*, because he was a traveling salesman from Monday to Friday (in backwoods Arkansas of all places - Memphis was where we lived and he was generally gone all week).
Some people still cling to the idea of 10% even in these days of internet access and years of 15%.
I don't think that's an argument to claim that the standard isn't what it is or was what it was. |
ohioborn
Member
Username: ohioborn
Post Number: 172
Registered: 07-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, September 05, 2009 - 05:00 pm: |
|
When your dad was a traveling salesman, was his dining out expenses paid for by the company he worked for, or did they come out of his own pocket? I know in the company I work for, the salesmen are generally quite generous when it comes to tipping (and other expenses), partly because their expense accounts are reimbursed 100% by the company, and partly due to the nature of salesmen. Just curious is all. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 675
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, September 05, 2009 - 06:26 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
I don't think that's an argument to claim that the standard isn't what it is or was what it was.
Neecey said:
Geez, Teleburst. Kris just mentioned possible reasoning for the information using personal memories about the whole when did it stop being 10% argument. I mean now we are bording on saying that 10% being average AFTER 1960 is an urban legend.
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3077
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, September 06, 2009 - 12:38 am: |
|
The argument that I was referring to was ignorance of a public standard.
We now have some actual written testimony. And her dad isn't a bad guy for not knowing. It's just not a good argument for discarding the premise.
Until now, everything has hinged on a single paper written by a non-American who takes a quote out of context and makes a statement that other web sites are using for footnotes.
I've actually gone out and done some research. And I'm fairly confident that I'm not going to find any legitimate authority that quotes 10% as a standard into the 60s.
As to the 50s, I'm saying that it apparently *did* change during that decade at some point. Sometime between 1950 and 1959. Until someone comes up with something that counters that, I'm saying that it's the best evidence. Why don't *you* prove me wrong?
"When your dad was a traveling salesman, was his dining out expenses paid for by the company he worked for, or did they come out of his own pocket? I know in the company I work for, the salesmen are generally quite generous when it comes to tipping (and other expenses), partly because their expense accounts are reimbursed 100% by the company, and partly due to the nature of salesmen. Just curious is all".
I can't say for sure, but I think he got a per diem. Remember too, he wasn't eating out at the Four Seasons - he was eating mostly in diners and places like The Admiral Benbow and Howard Johnson's. The dining out wasn't expensed dinners at Morton's. He sold janitor supplies to small factories and shops in towns in Northeast Arkansas.
So far, the evidence that I've uncovered has backed up my statements after the fact. I'm open to any new information in the general domain.
And heck, there are probably people *today* teaching their kids that 10% is what you should tip. That doesn't discredit the accepted standard. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 680
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, September 06, 2009 - 11:11 am: |
|
Teleburst said:
I've actually gone out and done some research. And I'm fairly confident that I'm not going to find any legitimate authority that quotes 10% as a standard into the 60s.
Neecey said:
Maybe that's because their just wasn't such a rigid guideline back then to begin with and people were tipping what they thought was appropriate which is why we are getting a lot of 10% references.
I think this is more of an aggressive topic now a days which is why it's a little easier to find references on this subject not to mention technology. We have the means now to have access to much more which leaves the door open to create that much more data on just about anything in order for people to look it up.
Back then most people just followed the crowd without a huge amount of chastising (my opinion of course). I also doubt it was as debatable as it is now. Therefore I doubt there was that much of a voice on the server side so how could anyone get the message across that 15% should or could be the new standard?
Professionalism (which I believe was much stronger back then) would have prevented customers from even getting the idea that 10% was too low. Besides how does one just up the percent without some universal declaration? I men now a days we are a more blunt and forward society so the grumbling isn't as minimal and the viewpoints are more freely shared as well as restaurants including gratuities or fees or that cute little tip table on the bottom of the check (love that one). This all helps spread the word and *educate* the public as to what the percentage *should* be. I doubt these non subtle tactics were in place back then hence 10% being the norm without it being too much of a concern.
I'd be more inclined to believe that the masses *believed* 10% was the accepted average til the 70's-80's. Why else would there be so many recollections of 10% being the average til only a few decades back?
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3079
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, September 06, 2009 - 03:04 pm: |
|
"Teleburst said:
I've actually gone out and done some research. And I'm fairly confident that I'm not going to find any legitimate authority that quotes 10% as a standard into the 60s.
Neecey said:
Maybe that's because their just wasn't such a rigid guideline back then to begin with and people were tipping what they thought was appropriate which is why we are getting a lot of 10% references".
And maybe the moon is made of green cheese.
"Back then most people just followed the crowd without a huge amount of chastising (my opinion of course). I also doubt it was as debatable as it is now. Therefore I doubt there was that much of a voice on the server side so how could anyone get the message across that 15% should or could be the new standard?"
Thank you for making my own point about who decided the standards, the restaurant industry or the consumer. It was the market that decided, not the restaurant industry. the consumers themselves decided to move toward a higher standard.
"Professionalism (which I believe was much stronger back then) would have prevented customers from even getting the idea that 10% was too low".
So the customers decided for themselves. That's what I've been saying.
"I men now a days we are a more blunt and forward society so the grumbling isn't as minimal and the viewpoints are more freely shared as well as restaurants including gratuities or fees or that cute little tip table on the bottom of the check (love that one). This all helps spread the word and *educate* the public as to what the percentage *should* be. I doubt these non subtle tactics were in place back then hence 10% being the norm without it being too much of a concern".
Until the 50s. Then it went up without these "non-subtle tactics". And this also supports the idea that just a handful of references reflected the standard, i.e. Emily Post, vogue, Amy Vanderbilt, etc. hence, they are probably good reflections of what the general population was thinking and also acted as the standard-bearers.
"I'd be more inclined to believe that the masses *believed* 10% was the accepted average til the 70's-80's. Why else would there be so many recollections of 10% being the average til only a few decades back"?
Because there really aren't. There's someone who claims that her dad taught her 10% (fair enough). There's another who's quoted a source that is, in itself suspect, as I have shown. The only direct proof quoted shows otherwise. Perhaps you can find something as direct as I've posted that shows otherwise and not just memories. I posted my memories as well, but it turns out that research after the fact has actually backed up those memories. You, OTOH, got nothin'. For someone who wasn't even born until the 70s, you sure have a lot of uninformed opinions about what it was like before that.
But, as always, you think that facts suck. Not surprising. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 683
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, September 06, 2009 - 04:05 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
And maybe the moon is made of green cheese.
Neecey said:
Odd but okay..
Teleburst said:
Thank you for making my own point about who decided the standards, the restaurant industry or the consumer. It was the market that decided, not the restaurant industry. the consumers themselves decided to move toward a higher standard.
Neecey said:
The market decided it and in 2 seconds it was a standard everyone was aware of? My point is that it took awhile for that *new standard* to be a widely know concept. Sorta like 18%-20% has been keeping into the equation as average for some years now.
Teleburst said:
they are probably good reflections of what the general population was thinking and also acted as the standard-bearers.
Neecey said:
There's plenty out there now that claims 18%-20% is the new standard but it's not *technically*.
Teleburst said:
There's someone who claims that her dad taught her 10% (fair enough). There's another who's quoted a source that is, in itself suspect, as I have shown.
Neecey said:
As well as plenty of this same information in places other than this site for people to come to a legitimately educated conclusion. Not questioning your research just questioning how many people were paying attention to that book at the time.
Teleburst said:
For someone who wasn't even born until the 70s, you sure have a lot of uninformed opinions about what it was like before that.
Neecey said:
So. That's what people do. Have opinions by going over all forms of information and coming to an educated opinion. You can say my thinking is flawed but your only basis for that comment is because I don't robotically produce acquired data in order to prove YOU wrong. That's not my goal. My goal is to share my take on this topic. If people only had discussions when they were armed with hardcore data then noone would be having discussions.
Teleburst said:
But, as always, you think that facts suck.
Neecey said:
No, I question people's interpretations of those facts and present the possibility that alternate interpretations exist.
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3085
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, September 07, 2009 - 01:59 am: |
|
"Teleburst said:
And maybe the moon is made of green cheese.
Neecey said:
Odd but okay..
Teleburst said:
Thank you for making my own point about who decided the standards, the restaurant industry or the consumer. It was the market that decided, not the restaurant industry. the consumers themselves decided to move toward a higher standard.
Neecey said:
The market decided it and in 2 seconds it was a standard everyone was aware of"?
No, apparently it took anywhere from 1 - 10 years. Sounds like the "tip creep" that people talk about today.
"My point is that it took awhile for that *new standard* to be a widely know concept".
MY point is that, by 1959, it had become the "new concept". Remember that I said that I didn't know what the standard was in the 50s because it was before my time. I only made an educated guess, which turned out to be supported by the main authority on etiquette. In fact, the Vogue reference showed tipping as high as 20% in certain instances as far back as 1949 (the average meal seem to demand 15%, even though some instances dropped to almost 10% and some were even higher than 20%). The point that I have been making is that the statement that tipping was "standardized" at 10% until the 60s and 70s is patently false (or mostly untrue, if you prefer).
"Teleburst said:
they are probably good reflections of what the general population was thinking and also acted as the standard-bearers.
Neecey said:
There's plenty out there now that claims 18%-20% is the new standard but it's not *technically*."
I agree.
But the figures quoted are *higher*, not lower than the "printed" standard. There's no evidence of a lower standard being advised. No internet back then? Of course. But absent any studies or contemporary accounts, you can't say one way or another with any credibility.
"As well as plenty of this same information in places other than this site for people to come to a legitimately educated conclusion. Not questioning your research just questioning how many people were paying attention to that book at the time".
Well then, you need to produce "those sites" for your argument to have any credibility.
Not everyone reads Vogue or buys etiquette books. But it's a reasonable assumption that they *reflect* current mores as well as influence them.
" So. That's what people do. Have opinions by going over all forms of information and coming to an educated opinion. You can say my thinking is flawed but your only basis for that comment is because I don't robotically produce acquired data in order to prove YOU wrong. That's not my goal. My goal is to share my take on this topic. If people only had discussions when they were armed with hardcore data then noone would be having discussions".
But you *don't* go over all forms of information. You throw out verifiable forms of information in favor of chrerry-picked similar opinions to your own.
People can have uninformed opinions. They just don't hold a lot of water or are valid until they are verified. Otherwise, they're just a bunch of hot air of little use. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 685
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, September 07, 2009 - 11:18 am: |
|
Teleburst said:
Well then, you need to produce "those sites" for your argument to have any credibility.
Neecey said:
I said information other than this site not information in other sites.
Teleburst said:
People can have uninformed opinions. They just don't hold a lot of water or are valid until they are verified. Otherwise, they're just a bunch of hot air of little use.
Neecey said:
Difference sources impact people's opinions differently. You are the type that needs to have verifiable data in order to plan out your day. That's cool. I'm not that rigid with my in take of information. Call it hot air but that flexibility allows me to see a bigger picture that sometimes looks more reasonable than the hard cold facts. To quote a poster I admire on this site: "Different folks, different strokes". :-)
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3089
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, September 07, 2009 - 03:39 pm: |
|
No, I'm NOT the type that needs to have verifiable data in order to plan out my day. Verifiable data verfies what I say.
Different strokes for different strokes works fine until different folks make factual statements. That's where the rubber hits the road.
It's one thing to say, "My dad taught me that 10% was standard way back in the 60s". It's another to project that to "10% was the standard in the 60s". At that point, you have to actually do some research to find out whether that's true or not.
It was "he said she said" until I brought some "objective facts" to the table. and what I found out doesn't mean that she was wrong about what her dad taught her.
The reason why I had a little more to base my comments on is that, not only was I taught 15% by my dad, I worked in the business in 1974, which is pretty close to the 60s and it was definitely a 15% world by then. Neither of my statements in and of themselves "proved" anything until there was some verification. I could have easily opened up that Emily Post 1959 book and found out that it was still 10% going into the 60s (and I thought about that as I pulled the volume from the shelf, but I was determined to report what I found regardless). Turns out that I was on the right track, especially when I made an educated guess about the 50s. Of course, if I had said that all during the 50s, it was always 15%, I would have been wrong. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 687
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, September 07, 2009 - 07:37 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
Different strokes for different strokes works fine until different folks make factual statements.
Neecey said:
Correction, when someone claims what they say is fact which is something I don't do. I just work with what I got. My opinion and some intelligent information that's out there for all the masses.
Teleburst said:
It's another to project that to "10% was the standard in the 60s".
Neecey said:
Nothing wrong with projecting a believe that is possible. I don't mislead people to believe that my opinions are actually fact. I just put out a reasoning that makes sense is all. Some can see it as food for thought and others can disregard it all together. That's the beauty of free will. :-)
Teleburst said:
At that point, you have to actually do some research to find out whether that's true or not.
Neecey said:
I've done my own checking and have come to my own conclusion. The only way I need to track down anything is if I'm neurotic about having people join me in my opinion. Or just feel like surfing the web for stuff which also happens. Again, my opinion is just out there as food for thought.
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3090
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 - 07:12 am: |
|
First you say that you did your own checking and then you claim that tracking down stuff makes you neurotic unless you just "feel like it".
Which is it?
I'm interested in the "did my own checking" part.
"My opinion and some intelligent information that's out there for all the masses".
Unless that "intelligent information" doesn't jibe with your opinion. Then you pretty much discount it.
On one hand, you previously talked about "going over all forms of information and coming to an informed decision". This implies trying to come to a factual decision. On the other hand, you claim, "It's only my opinion" and "nothing wrong with projecting a belief that is possible".
Heck, you can pull beliefs out of thin air and claim that "there's nothing wrong with it". But don't get defensive when someone picks that opinion apart using the "intelligent information". |
paid_up
Advanced Member
Username: paid_up
Post Number: 824
Registered: 01-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 - 09:54 am: |
|
Informed decision, 10%, if that. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 688
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 - 11:13 am: |
|
Teleburst said:
First you say that you did your own checking and then you claim that tracking down stuff makes you neurotic unless you just "feel like it".
Neecey said:
There's checking and then there's tracking but you know what? The sentence explains itself. You see, you sorta need a lot in order to understand the point someone is trying to get across. The original quote was "The only way I need to TRACK down anything is if I'm neurotic about having people join me in my opinion." Meaning if I wanted to make it my lifes work to have a following then yeah I would probably be trekking to the library and taking my own polls in my building. Calling up older relatives and surveying them. You know stuff like that. As it is now I just look around the internet when the mood strikes me which brings us to this quote: "Or just feel like surfing the web for stuff which also happens". or bring it up in coversation with friends (like when we sat down to watch the movie "waiting"). You know average stuff like that.
Teleburst said:
Unless that "intelligent information" doesn't jibe with your opinion. Then you pretty much discount it.
Neecey said:
No, I incorporate any "intellegent" information in with everything else. Then *POOF* an opinion is made leaning towards one factor that seems more believable to me than the other. Of course we all know where that leaves us.
Teleburst said:
This implies trying to come to a factual decision.
Neecey said:
It implies coming up with an opinion. It's funny you keep fighting with me about how I am trying to state facts and I continue to correct you that it's my opinion and yet you still argue that I'm trying to tell you my opinion is pure fact. Is there some other language I should be trying?
Teleburst said:
On the other hand, you claim, "It's only my opinion" and "nothing wrong with projecting a belief that is possible".
Neecey said:
Yes, by using all forms of information out there. This all works hand and hand.
Teleburst said:
Heck, you can pull beliefs out of thin air
Neecey said:
Thin air? See now when you imply that it needs to be in a book or else it's completely false is where we disagree on what is relevant sources of information. To each their own.
Teleburst said:
But don't get defensive when someone picks that opinion apart using the "intelligent information".
Neecey said:
"Intelligent information" isn't ONLY in the form of *verifiable data*. Anyone who argues that reality is limiting themselves to the plethora of knowledge out there.
I will defend my thought process since you find it debatable. I've also agreed to disagree on occassion but that's not good enough for you either so the only thing that'll give you what you crave is to lable me as a wack job that has no basis for anything. Hey you can believe what you want to believe doesn't make it true which I believe is the point you're always trying to make me believe. Guess it applies to all of us huh?
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
vozveratu
Senior Member
Username: vozveratu
Post Number: 1447
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 08, 2009 - 01:20 pm: |
|
(like when we sat down to watch the movie "waiting").
Funny Movie. The restaurant 'Office Space' movie. I had the idea of creating a move based in restaurant, however I did not have the experience, this guy had on putting on the screen. Must have known someone.
My idea was to have a trainee, but everytime they had a trainee, something would go wrong that would either scare him or her away, or the trainee did something really bad resulting in getting fired.
Another take is similar to one of the first movies of Adam Sandler. Frank is working in a dishroom and just basically living off his uncle's money and working there just to do something to make his uncle happy. Uncle is getting ready to retire and insists that this dude take up the reins of his restaurant empire, which includes diners, breakfast places, and fine dining restaurants. Guy struggles with waiting tables and fails in humerous ways that result in his uncle just not knowing what to do with him. In a last ditch effort, the guy works at one of the restaurants which allows the waiter to be rude with the guests.
He shines and the guests love him, resulting in the uncle to sign his empire over to his nephew.
I think the movie they created was funny. Far fetched in parts, but funny. Love Niomi. Wish I had someone like that working in my restaurant. |
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3091
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2009 - 09:32 am: |
|
You know Neecey, all of that is fine. And yet, when I state *my* opinion, you do exactly the same thing that you accuse me of - you start trying to pick it apart and you make claims that I don't know what I'm talking about and start throwing "facts" around (like my opinion about retail being much easier than waiting tables for instance). The funny thing is though that you take the extraordinary and try to make it applicable to the whole, whereas I do the exact opposite. I hapen to think that my approach gets us much closer to the "truth".
Perhaps you could look at that as an example about how when someone makes misstatements about ones' job, they consider it "personal" and they jump to their jobs' defense. I think you're being hypocritical and it's also the case that you tend to nitpick statements from me that you wouldn't from anyone else. That's fine but it means that you drive the war simply because you deliberately are provacative and antagonistic toward me (but that's probably your on-line personality since it's the way you came into this forum and it's the way that you'll probably stay, so I'm resigned to it).
Well, this whole forum is basically about my job and is directly about the way I earn most of my money. There's a lot of misinformation that gets posted here and I think it's not unreasonable for me to try to correct it.
Since nothing is 100% about people's behavior, even factual comments could be called "opinions" because you can find exceptions to every rule. But that's a cop-out. There are generalities that pretty much become truths because of the overwhelming numbers of people who fall under the generality. There are also things that are closer to 50/50 (this happens in politics all of the time).
For instance, when I say that most people tip appropriately, of course it's based on extensive personal experience both personal and related to me directly by many other servers. There may be isolated pockets or individual servers for whom this doesn't hold true, but that doesn't make it any less a reasonable and "factual" statement. If someone wants to challenge that "opinion", because that's what it is, they are welcome to. But just saying "I think it's wrong because I don't tip reasonably and that proves you're wrong" is just a bunch of hooey.
"Hey you can believe what you want to believe doesn't make it true".
You could have just boiled it all down to that and I would have agreed with you. What "makes it true" (as true as anything in life can be) is a factual basis.
But you simply like to disagree with me because it's me. If I said, "the sun will rise everyday", you'd respond, "It's been pouring down rain since midnight and it's 9am and I can't see the sun. You're wrong". |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 690
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2009 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
You know Neecey, all of that is fine. And yet, when I state *my* opinion, you do exactly the same thing that you accuse me of - you start trying to pick it apart and you make claims that I don't know what I'm talking about
Neecey said:
When? When you make untrue statements about what *I* do in a day? The most resistance you got from me was when you decided to try and CLAIM *factual* statements instead of leaving your opinion in a category where it belongs which is opinion. You don't like to leave room for people, their own logic and own common sense. You can percent this and percent that til you are blue in the face when bringing up your hands on personal experience but that information will be subjected to how others want to take that information from you. Agreeing to disagree can take you far in life.
Teleburst said:
(like my opinion about retail being much easier than waiting tables for instance).
Neecey said:
The only debate here is your need to throw in the word much. I don't agree is all and I give examples of why I personally don't agree. Do 80% agree with your statement? Probably but my own experiences tell me something different. That's what that debate boiled down to and I'm ready to move on from that difference of opinion.
Teleburst said:
The funny thing is though that you take the extraordinary
Neecey said:
That's the thing. I don't think certain details are extraordinary. I think the fact that people just minimize the reality out there that they tell themselves it *isn't* much but if you really inspect it you can turn up a lot of relevant details that change the perception of what's really going on.
Teleburst said:
I think you're being hypocritical
Neecey said:
When have I ever told you you don't do what you do at your job and when have I told you that what you do is easy?
Teleburst said:
That's fine but it means that you drive the war simply because you deliberately are provacative and antagonistic toward me
Neecey said:
Because you tend to be disrespectful. I've managed to have pretty simple and pleasant dialogue with other posters on here. I try to take care not to personally antagonize other posters deliberately or just because. Believe it or not even you. For the last few threads you've come at me from every angle while my posts are aimed towards the topic without trying to make references to you specifically or try and coyly make little comments refering to an argument we have been having on another thread just because. That's why I created that thread just for you. I felt that if this ridiculousness was going to continue then it could at least be contained in one thread where the other threads may possibly have a chance to expand beyond Teleburst trying to put Neecey *in her place* which ain't never gonna happen. I have strong opinions and I feel that I have the right to throw them out there even if it's not popular opinion. I'm no researcher or master at percents but I think I've got enough to get in there and make an argument. Maybe if you didn't continue to treat others opinions as childish ramblings then maybe you wouldn't get so defensive and then maybe these wars wouldn't commence. I don't know.
Teleburst said:
There's a lot of misinformation that gets posted here and I think it's not unreasonable for me to try to correct it.
Neecey said:
You can correct it all you like but if someone has a specific opinion then you can only do so much with that. I don't come on here and try and poison the integrity of this site by posting bulls!!t so this need to discredit me or others to the point of us having no kind of basis for anything is a bit much.
Teleburst said:
But just saying "I think it's wrong because I don't tip reasonably and that proves you're wrong" is just a bunch of hooey.
Neecey said:
I agree with that. Thing is if I don't agree with something you post I don't try to attack whether you seem like a person who can speak intelligently. If you presented something logical I won't then try and discredit YOU as a person. I'll let your clear, concise, thoughtful post speak for itself and if I find something that I find the need to argue then I move from there.
Teleburst said:
If I said, "the sun will rise everyday", you'd respond, "It's been pouring down rain since midnight and it's 9am and I can't see the sun.
Neecey said:
No, I would just leave it alone. Our wars are based on this ridiculous need to disrespect. Find a war that I've intentionally started with you (beside the kills threads) and you will find basic debates happening on various threads involving me and others that turns into me countering your disrespectful tone towards me personally. I've made this attempt to explain before.
As for 10% tipping being the average I still think it wasn't mainstream til the 70's/80's. I'm using what I've noticed about the current shift from 15%-18%-20% as a part of my reasoning. Some of my reasoning comes from my observations regarding simple word of mouth and how important that is when coming to certain conclusions. The rest is a hodgepodge of various information. Call me crazy but I think that receipe is used very frequently with a lot of things in life. You can criticize it but it has served me well so far. We just have different ways and I feel both can be heard. There maybe those out there who appreciate my reasoning and find it a refreshing way to see things or that your hard data may be the way to go. People should just be able to take the information they find on here however it's presented. Debate it, argue it, take it with a grain of salt but it should all be done within reason and at the very least respectfully.
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3092
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2009 - 12:48 pm: |
|
"Teleburst said:
The funny thing is though that you take the extraordinary
Neecey said:
That's the thing. I don't think certain details are extraordinary".
You yourself have said that your work situtation is extraordinary. Someone working in a GAP in the other 3,141 stores can't possibly know how difficult you and your fellow "flagship stores" have it. How brutal it is. How grueling it is. That's what I meant by "extraordinary". Nobody who works in even the biggest and highest volume store of its type in any other market can compare to your extraordinary workplace.
"When have I ever told you you don't do what you do at your job and when have I told you that what you do is easy"?
Go back and review what you said about my bookstore job vis a vis *your* job.
"I've managed to have pretty simple and pleasant dialogue with other posters on here".
Funny, so do I. Even with people who disagree with me. None of them feel the need to push buttons for their own amusement and so I respond in kind.
" For the last few threads you've come at me from every angle while my posts are aimed towards the topic without trying to make references to you specifically or try and coyly make little comments refering to an argument we have been having on another thread just because. That's why I created that thread just for you".
And you don't think that creating attack threads naming me personally isn't a personal attack or is just you being "on topic"?
"I felt that if this ridiculousness was going to continue then it could at least be contained in one thread where the other threads may possibly have a chance to expand beyond Teleburst trying to put Neecey *in her place* which ain't never gonna happen".
There we have it because you're not going to "put me in my place" either.
"I have strong opinions and I feel that I have the right to throw them out there even if it's not popular opinion. I'm no researcher or master at percents but I think I've got enough to get in there and make an argument".
You're confusing argument with *argue*ment.
" If you presented something logical I won't then try and discredit YOU as a person".
No. You would *never* create derogatory threads. No, you would never imply that I "poison the integrity of this site by posting bulls!!t". No, you would never discredit what I say about my job by saying that it couldn't possibly compare with *your* job. No, you would never take the low road, despite acknowledging that you actually do that occasionally.
"I'll let your clear, concise, thoughtful post speak for itself and if I find something that I find the need to argue then I move from there".
You mean like you did in this very thread? You mean like when I posted clear information and didn't make any external claims about the information, clearly stating that the sources themselves made certain statements? Like when you attacked I my clearly noted opinion by starting out with "Geez" and then going on the discredit the information that I posted?
It's funny - Ohioborn disagrees with me about a lot of things. And yet, we are able to have a reasonable dialog. Wonder why that is. Kris has also disagreed with me on points and was able to post counter "information" to me which I addressed and we didn't come to verbal blows. Wonder why that is.
"Our wars are based on this ridiculous need to disrespect".
Ahhh, finally some self-awareness.
"As for 10% tipping being the average I still think it wasn't mainstream til the 70's/80's".
And yet, you would be wrong (I'm sorry if this bothers you). You weren't there. I was in the business in two different restaurants in the South (not in NYC). I indeed knew from contemporary standards as well as what I was seeing on a daily basis what was considered "average tipping". You can argue until you're blue in the face and you can use all sorts of unrelated information to make your point, but the basic FACT is, you're simply wrong. I *will* state that categorically. And you can't disprove it. If you want to hold a wrong opinion, that's your right, of course. Of course, all of this happened when you were still in diapers and little girl clothes.
"Call me crazy".
OK, you're crazy.
"Debate it, argue it, take it with a grain of salt but it should all be done within reason and at the very least respectfully".
The problem is, you have to *use* reason. Using the "opinion excuse" doesn't fall under reason.
Respectfully yours,
teleburst |
paid_up
Advanced Member
Username: paid_up
Post Number: 825
Registered: 01-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2009 - 05:09 pm: |
|
See I told that (10%) was the way to go. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 691
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 09, 2009 - 07:22 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
You yourself have said that your work situtation is extraordinary.
Neecey said:
Well I thought you were commenting on my opinion regarding tipping.
Teleburst said:
Go back and review what you said about my bookstore job vis a vis *your* job.
Neecey said:
That was according to you. You yourself was using your own experience at the book store as proof that you had it pretty easy. From then on I used your admission as my guide. I've never told you how easy your server job is. Twist however you want. You created the confusion and you still continue to try. Que cera cera.
Teleburst said:
Someone working in a GAP in the other 3,141 stores can't possibly know how difficult you and your fellow "flagship stores" have it.
Neecey said:
Well the reality is a Flagship store will operate differently. Ignoring what I mean by that is going to lead you in the wrong direction.
Teleburst said:
Nobody who works in even the biggest and highest volume store of its type in any other market can compare to your extraordinary workplace.
Neecey said:
Who said that you are the one exagerrating what I've posted about my work experience.
Teleburst said:
Funny, so do I. Even with people who disagree with me.
Neecey said:
Well then I guess we have ourselves an enigma.
Teleburst said:
None of them feel the need to push buttons for their own amusement and so I respond in kind.
Neecey said:
You just don't recognize how condescending you are. That's okay. I've dealt with plenty of people who aren't self aware. However, most of the time when they've be told how they've been behaving they make an effort to adjust their behavior. Your buttons are pretty much anyone who disagree with you continuously and doesn't say uncle.
Teleburst said:
There we have it because you're not going to "put me in my place" either.
Neecey said:
Well you do have your own thread so you've got a *location* at the very least. Hee. :-)
Teleburst said:
You're confusing argument with *argue*ment.
Neecey said:
You see. You just keep getting it wrong.
Teleburst said:
No. You would *never* create derogatory threads.
Neecey said:
How old are you??? No really? It's like you don't even remember the ugliness that you are capable of. I'm just amazed at your complete denial of your own behavior. I can comment on a brand new thread that Voz has started and almost immediately you'll chime in with something unrelated but meant to poke me. You've thrown my name out in numerous threads that I'm not even participating in and yet you've got these blinders on with regards to my *defensive* post against you. Why poke if you want to turn around and be *astonished* at the responses? Trolls do that.
Teleburst said:
No, you would never imply that I "poison the integrity of this site by posting bulls!!t".
Neecey said:
Wow!!! I didn't post that to imply YOU do it. It was a straight up statement meaning that I don't come on here and just post willy nilly one liners just for the fun of it like some do. I'm an actual participator on this forum that wants to have a voice. You take everything I post and try to say I'm talking about YOU. You see how you spin things. It was a statement to say I'm not just here to piss you off! I'm here to discuss. HELLO!
Teleburst said:
No, you would never discredit what I say about my job by saying that it couldn't possibly compare with *your* job.
Neecey said:
Uhm, you're the one that did that. You're the one that kept saying mine didn't compare to yours. How did it all of a sudden turn into me saying mine was harder than yours as a server? You really are just flying off the handle now aren't you?
Teleburst said:
No, you would never take the low road, despite acknowledging that you actually do that occasionally.
Neecey said:
Look at that sentence again. You've just acknowleded that I have in fact acknowledged that I take the low road and yet... now your just not making any sense.
Teleburst said:
and then going on the discredit the information that I posted?
Neecey said:
Discredit? I don't discredit anything. I *disagree* that's all there is to that particular piece of information.
Teleburst said:
And yet, we are able to have a reasonable dialog.
Neecey said:
yes, and I've also noticed that he's very, very, very careful with his tone when he does post. Even then you get a tad nasty when he's a little more adamant about a point that's not in agreement with you. Kelly on the other hand isn't as passive and because of that you don't play as nice even though Kelly is pretty respectful if firm when posting and it's clear the debate is the main focus not some personal war.
Teleburst said:
Ahhh, finally some self-awareness.
Neecey said:
So once and for all its' hit you? Great!
Teleburst said:
And yet, you would be wrong (I'm sorry if this bothers you).
Neecey said:
It doesn't cause I don't think I am. I mean I could be but there's so much up for debate....
Teleburst said:
but the basic FACT is, you're simply wrong.
Neecey said:
If it makes you feel better. You know you kinda remind me of Ross from friends.
Teleburst said:
If you want to hold a wrong opinion
Neecey said:
That's your opinion. ;-)
Teleburst said:
Of course, all of this happened when you were still in diapers and little girl clothes.
Neecey said:
Yeah, and the bus fare was a nickle however for some reason I know this.
Teleburst said:
The problem is, you have to *use* reason. Using the "opinion excuse" doesn't fall under reason.
Neecey said:
You come to an opinion using reason. Works hand in hand. Til we post again my arch-enemy. :-)
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3094
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 10:01 am: |
|
"Teleburst said:
You yourself have said that your work situtation is extraordinary.
Neecey said:
Well I thought you were commenting on my opinion regarding tipping".
Obviously not.
"Teleburst said:
Go back and review what you said about my bookstore job vis a vis *your* job.
Neecey said:
That was according to you. You yourself was using your own experience at the book store as proof that you had it pretty easy. From then on I used your admission as my guide. I've never told you how easy your server job is".
And I didn't say that you did.
You know, I'll just leave it at that, despite all of your noise about this or that. I'm sure that you're just gleeful that you poisoned a thread of mine because you see it as "revenge" for what you think I routinely do. I *do* note that you don't mind going off-topic with personal attacks because of your denial that you are a willing participant in personal attacks. You don't mind sinking a thread - not at all.
As you so succinctly put it, que sera sera.
PS:
"Kelly on the other hand isn't as passive and because of that you don't play as nice even though Kelly is pretty respectful if firm when posting and it's clear the debate is the main focus not some personal war".
It has never gotten nasty with her either. You're confusing vigorous debate with button pushing. As long as you continue to try to push my buttons for your own personal amusement, I'm happy to push yours. And all of the little girl squeals of hee just peg you where you type from - the sandbox.
PPS:
The bus fare in NYC was .15 until the early 60s. It actually rose to .10 on July 1, 1950 (I'm guessing that it rose from a nickel). Facts really suck, don't they? |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 692
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 10:13 am: |
|
Teleburst said:
The bus fare in NYC was .15 until the early 60s
Neecey said:
It was actually $.50 when I was in diapers. I was thinking of something my mother said the fare was in PR when she was a little girl. I had to go back and ask my father what it was after I was born cause I knew i was wrong after I posted it but easy enough to remedy. Just like that however I didn't look it up in a book or anything to verify but I'm certain it is acurate. That's for giving me the opportunity to show how easy it is to get accurate information from the people around you without worrying about trekking to the library everytime.
(Message edited by neecey93 on September 10, 2009)
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 693
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 10:41 am: |
|
Teleburst said:
Obviously not.
Neecey said:
Obviously? Oh sure okay if you say so. You must hear that phrase a lot cause after a while that's probably the only thing that would get you to just stop the griping.
Teleburst said:
And I didn't say that you did.
Neecey said:
Okay, sure if you say so...
Teleburst said:
It has never gotten nasty with her either.
Neecey said:
Okay, sure if you say so....
Teleburst said:
As long as you continue to try to push my buttons for your own personal amusement, I'm happy to push yours.
Neecey said:
Then I guess everyone on here better prepared for this to turn into the retail vs. tipping page cause that's what you've turn a number of threads into.
Teleburst said:
I'm sure that you're just gleeful that you poisoned a thread of mine because you see it as "revenge" for what you think I routinely do
Neecey said:
Wow, that thread really does bother you. <pat on back>
Teleburst said:
And all of the little girl squeals
Neecey said:
Oh, you don't like them? Hee! :-)
Teleburst said:
I *do* note that you don't mind going off-topic with personal attacks because of your denial that you are a willing participant in personal attacks
Neecey said:
I never denied participating. I just make it clear that you're the one that gets on that path and it goes downhill from there. Explain why else would you respond to a brand new thread with a post that includes MY name if you didn't intend to sink a thread? I go and post my opinion, new thread clean slate is how I see it and here you swoop in and attack my post with a post littered with snarky pokes you know I won't ignore. Seems to me you like playing this game and like I've mentioned before I won't just limp away when you take it to a personal level. On the debate side I'll leave it alone if I don't have anything to add but usually it never ends with just a thoughtful post and opinion on the discussion at hand it's always some snide remark you need to throw out because as usual we don't agree. I can live with the idea to agree to disagree, done it with Voz a few times and with Kris. I guess it's easier because they don't find the need to suggest anything too personal with regards to me.
Question: What have I attacked about you personally. You take your job personally and therefore think my position on the system as a whole, the bad servers out there, and the annoying entitlement issue out there as a personal attack against you. Even then my snarkiness comes out when referring to the negative side of the system. You refuse to see that.
I finally gave in a couple of threads back (after a long time of trying to keep it clean) and referred to your age, that dig about racist and sexist but we all know why that came about and it didn't last long. Before that recently came about, all I've done is mock your ridiculously overbearing attitude ON THIS SITE. However you've referred to me regarding:
-Me having wackjob friends
-My very acceptable attitude on wanting a pleasant dining experience.
- Being an unfit mother
- Being a single mother
-My hispanic background (which drew the racist comment)
- My *dreadlocked* boyfriend
-My little brat nephew
-Called me a btch and an Ahole
-Referred to me as a hooker (which drew that sexist comment)
Wow! I wonder why I don't just leave your posts alone with a shrug and a humble Okay....Yeah right.
(Message edited by neecey93 on September 10, 2009)
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3095
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 10:50 am: |
|
Hee. :mock: |
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3096
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 11:00 am: |
|
The fare went up to .50 from .35 cents on Sept. 1st 1974, so now you don't have to check. But someone did.
BTW, that was a year after I did my first waiting job, during the 15% era. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 694
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
The fare went up to .50 from .35 cents on Sept. 1st 1974, so now you don't have to check. But someone did.
Neecey said:
Gee and all I had to do was ask someone to come up with the same correct information. Hmmmn. Makes ya wonder.
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 695
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 12:24 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
The fare went up to .50 from .35 cents on Sept. 1st 1974, so now you don't have to check. But someone did
Neecey said:
Actually it was Sept 1, 1975. You seem to have gotten your *factual* information wrong. Thanx for proving yet again that it happens. Makes you wonder what else could be wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_transit_fares
http://thethirdrail.net/0007/fares1.htm
http://www.nycsubway.org/tech/tokens/
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3097
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 01:14 pm: |
|
Yes, in going from the site that I found (none of the ones that you cited), I typed 1974 instead of 1975. I stand corrected. You might learn this phrase yourself.
However, if was you who confused fares in two completely different countries. Makes you wonder how *far wrong* you often are.
I'm surprised though. For someone who hates when people do research, you sure jumped to this one. Congratulations! Perhaps you're making progress in "fact checking". Let's hope it extends to such things as "I bleieve that 10% as a standard might have gone into the '80s".
PS, hopefully, PR will become the 51st state soon and it won't actually be two different countries. I'm in favor of it myself, as long as the majority people of Puerto Rico are. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 696
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 02:25 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
if was you who confused fares in two completely different countries
Neecey said:
Using my own memory on a whim.
Teleburst said:
For someone who hates when people do research, you sure jumped to this one.
Neecey said:
Cause I couldn't resist proving you wrong. Simple as that. I'm not obsessed with you conforming to my opinion which is why I don't usually bother.
(Message edited by neecey93 on September 10, 2009)
(Message edited by neecey93 on September 10, 2009)
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 697
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 02:31 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
PS, hopefully, PR will become the 51st state soon and it won't actually be two different countries.
Neecey said:
It's a commonwealth.
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 698
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 03:42 pm: |
|
Wiki also had this to say about tipping 10%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tip#United_States
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3098
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 10, 2009 - 07:10 pm: |
|
"Neecey said:
It's a commonwealth".
So? So is The Phillipines. And Kentucky, for that matter.
But I should have been clearer - the "two different countries" referred to PF and the US, not PR being two different countries - a reference to your confusion of two different countries.
"Wiki also had this to say about tipping 10%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tip#United_States"
I'm impressed that they quote "The Bridge and Tunnel Club" as a reference :snark:. Of course, that reference also claims that 20% is the new standard. I disagree with that as well.
Here's what is written on Wikipedia:
"Tipping is customary in restaurants offering traditional table service. While the amount of a tip is at the discretion of the patron, the customary tip until the 1980s was from 10 to 15 percent of the total bill before tax, for good to excellent service, and since then has risen to 15 to 20 percent before tax".
The aformentioned Bridge and Tunnel Club is the first reference and what it claims (without any substantiation, credible or otherwise, of course,) is that it's been 15% since the 70s. Of course, I've said that it was 15% in the 70s as well. The other reference cited doesn't say *anything* about the specific history of the 10% tip.
So, it's not anything worth quoting. Wikipedia is fine when it references credible research material, but it's just another blah blah blah site when it comes to something like this that isn't properly researched.
I could go in tomorrow and get that section changed because I've got more credible sources. But it's not worth my time. If I did that, your reference wouldn't be anything that you would want to quote. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 699
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, September 13, 2009 - 09:52 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
I'm impressed that they quote "The Bridge and Tunnel Club" as a reference :snark:. Of course, that reference also claims that 20% is the new standard. I disagree with that as well.
Neecey said:
However the same source was correct about subway fares over the years. Apparantly legit places get it wrong too. Guess we are always left with our own rationale when weighing the information out there.
Teleburst quoted:
While the amount of a tip is at the discretion of the patron, the customary tip until the 1980s was from 10 to 15 percent of the total bill before tax
Neecey said:
That's seems easy enough to understand on its own.
Neecey said:
I could go in tomorrow and get that section changed because I've got more credible sources. But it's not worth my time. If I did that, your reference wouldn't be anything that you would want to quote.
Neecey said:
?
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3103
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 01:29 pm: |
|
Neecey said:
That's seems easy enough to understand on its own".
Well, if I say "the moon is made of green cheese", that's "easy enough to understand". Doesn't make it true.
"Neecey said:
I could go in tomorrow and get that section changed because I've got more credible sources. But it's not worth my time. If I did that, your reference wouldn't be anything that you would want to quote.
Neecey said:
?"
Wikipedia is edited by its users. I would have that part taken down since it's not substantiated. I'd offer valid references and the statement would disappear. It's the same thing you do when you write a term paper - you document. If you don't document with credible sources, you get docked. They get about a C- on that portion because their source isn't authoritative. |
paid_up
Advanced Member
Username: paid_up
Post Number: 826
Registered: 01-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 03:37 pm: |
|
Someone writes a book and it is read 35-45 years later so it must be factual. Like the bible. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 700
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, September 14, 2009 - 04:15 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
Well, if I say "the moon is made of green cheese", that's "easy enough to understand". Doesn't make it true.
Neecey said:
Well the quote was "While the amount of a tip is at the discretion of the patron, the customary tip until the 1980s was from 10 to 15 percent of the total bill before tax" which is a little more of a debatable subject than the moon being made of green cheese. Again my point being, we are always left with our own rationale when weighing the information out there. We weigh the source, the information being shared and how we feel about what is being said. Some use less, some use more to come to their own conclusions and some decide whether they will claim their determinations to be fact while others leave room for other possibilities.
There is word of mouth out there that backs (maybe not by your standards) but backs nonetheless the idea that the average tip was 10% up to the 1970's some claim it reached all the way to the 1980's. My opinion is that it's reasonable to believe that a 10% was the standard up until the 70's and at the very least 15% wasn't a *mainstream* idea before the 1970's.
Again, nowadays people argue that 18%-20% is the new standard when in fact 15% is still considered the average with 18-20% reflecting good to excellent service. It's happening now so why couldn't it have happened the same way back then? That's a big part of my rationale.
(Message edited by neecey93 on September 14, 2009)
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
vozveratu
Senior Member
Username: vozveratu
Post Number: 1452
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 06:53 am: |
|
Again, nowadays people argue that 18%-20% is the new standard
Who?
Teleburst and myself included state the standard is 15% give or take based on level of service. 20% being excellent, 10% being poor(not in the sense of horrible).
Where are you seeing the standard being 18-20%? TV? Magazines? Newspapers? Friends? Co-Workers? |
paid_up
Advanced Member
Username: paid_up
Post Number: 827
Registered: 01-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 09:26 am: |
|
vos it has been posted on this site before, servers should get at least 20%. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 701
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 10:57 am: |
|
Who?
Neecey said:
In general. Not every post is in relation to things only said here. However the idea of 20% being the new 15% has been mentioned on this forum before. Not that it is the standard but that the concept is out there already sliding into the norm.
Voz said:
Where are you seeing the standard being 18-20%? TV? Magazines? Newspapers? Friends? Co-Workers
Neecey said:
All over the place.
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3104
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 01:03 pm: |
|
It's also been mentioned on this forum that servers should only get 10%. It's also been mentioned on this forum that people shouldn't tip because it keeps wages down.
Internet forums are pretty full of a lot of noise. However, it's true that people seem to be tipping closer to 20% in general. It's their choice, I guess. Another indication of a market determining for itself what's appropriate.
It still doesn't change the basic standard - 15% for average, workaday service.
"Teleburst said:
Well, if I say "the moon is made of green cheese", that's "easy enough to understand". Doesn't make it true.
Neecey said:
Well the quote was "While the amount of a tip is at the discretion of the patron, the customary tip until the 1980s was from 10 to 15 percent of the total bill before tax" which is a little more of a debatable subject than the moon being made of green cheese".
Anything is "debatable". It still doesn't make it true. I have seen nothing that supports that statement other than the statement itself. If I say "The moon is made of green cheese" and I use that opinion to support a factual statement, I would be in error.
"There is word of mouth out there that backs (maybe not by your standards) but backs nonetheless the idea that the average tip was 10% up to the 1970's"
The "word of mouth" would simply be wrong. You might ask some servers who were working in the industry at that time and consider *their* word of mouth. Thing is, an individual might have thought that the standard was 10%, but their perspective is limited to themselves. They don't know what their fellow diners are doing. And if the vast majority of people are actiing differently, then I claim that *this* is the standard, not what one person is doing.
"My opinion is that it's reasonable to believe that a 10% was the standard up until the 70's and at the very least 15% wasn't a *mainstream* idea before the 1970's".
Your biased opinion duly noted. Your uninformed opinion duly noted.
"Again, nowadays people argue that 18%-20% is the new standard when in fact 15% is still considered the average with 18-20% reflecting good to excellent service. It's happening now so why couldn't it have happened the same way back then"?
Because it wasn't. It's as simple as that.
"That's a big part of my rationale".
You're welcome to your rationalization. But that's all it is, a specious rationalization. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 702
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, September 15, 2009 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
It still doesn't change the basic standard - 15% for average, workaday service
Neecey said:
Exactly.
Teleburst said:
Thing is, an individual might have thought that the standard was 10%, but their perspective is limited to themselves.
Neecey said:
Very possible.
Teleburst said:
Your biased opinion duly noted. Your uninformed opinion duly noted.
Neecey said:
My *possible* opinion is very clear. :-)
Teleburst said:
Because it wasn't. It's as simple as that.
Neecey said:
Cause one book and a magazine told you so. Okay.
Teleburst said:
You're welcome to your rationalization. But that's all it is, a specious rationalization.
Neecey said:
While yours is pure "fact"? Whatever. I'm happy to be someone who has a mind of their own and isn't subject to opinions of others that never leave room for other possibilities. To be that rigid is to leave yourself open to a conversation faux paus. So as it stands on the subject... maybe, maybe not. And the world still goes round. :-)
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
vozveratu
Senior Member
Username: vozveratu
Post Number: 1453
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 07:01 am: |
|
While yours is pure "fact"? Whatever.
Not fact, basic laws of average. The number of tables we wait on and have waited on tells us from the simple numbers that people tend to tip 18-20% for good service.
Averages are that white middle aged couples are the better tippers, while business men of all types are the biggest spenders, but tip 15-18%.
Gays, smokers and strippers along with most who work in the business are 20-25% tippers on average.
Old people and teenagers tip on average 15%.
Foreigners tip roughly 10% on average. Except Japanese, they tip 15-18%.
Men tip higher on average, than women. Women will tip higher with male servers than female servers, while men usually keeps it average unless they take a liking to a female server.
This is not fact, just experience of waiting table for 18+ years, plus talking with other servers who can add in what they witness in their lifetime.
Take it for what it's worth. I don't think tipping can be factual anyway. Most people have their opinion on what is right and wrong, anyway. |
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3105
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 09:12 am: |
|
"Teleburst said:
Because it wasn't. It's as simple as that.
Neecey said:
Cause one book and a magazine told you so. Okay."
No, because two books told me (and so did the NY Times) so and it supported what I had gathered logically from what my dad taught me in the 60s. Having not seen the "generally recommended average" rise since the early 60s, I assumed that it hadn't just mysteriously jumped for some reason prior to 1966. Until I got some firm references on it, it was just an opinion, just like everyone else's. But now it's been backed up by two independent reliable sources.
"While yours is pure "fact"? Whatever".
It IS a "pure fact" when it comes to what the tipping standard was in the 70s and 80s because I WAS THERE. Whether you believe it or not, the tipping standard was 15%, pure and simple. Some might not have complied, just as some don't comply to this day, but it doesn't matter. The standard was the standard. You can stay stubborn all you want.
In regard to the 50s, I've already noted that at some point during the 50s, it probably mutated from 10% - 15%. In the 50s, people got their tipping advice from a handful of sources, the two biggies, Emily Post and Amy Vanderbilt and a few NY based magazines, Vogue being one of the most influential. Having two of those sources verify 15% during the 50s is a pretty strong case (remember, there were instances where Vogue recommended 15 - 20% as early as the end of the 40s), especially when you consider that this was the period (the post-war boom) that people started eating out more in sitdown restaurants instead of counter diners. So it would be logical that the 10% that they used to leave at the counter would rise to 15% as they were waited on hand and foot by servers carrying food to their table. Remember, Middle America didn't have a lot of Peter Lugar's or Brown Derbys and probably wouldn't have gone to them more than every couple of years if they were around. It wasn't until the 50s that you started to see more and more reasonably priced restaurants "for the rest of us" like Howard Johnson's. Up to that point, there were only a handful of places like "Big Boy" that straddled the world of counter and table service. Most table service dining up to that point (in most cities and towns) was high dollar, have-to-deal-with-a-tuxedoed-maitre-de hoity toity places. In those cases, you were expected to tip the maire de, the captain, the wine steward, the coat check girl and the cigarette girl. It was that or eat at the diner (unless you were a traveler who dined in a hotel or motel restaurant).
"I'm happy to be someone who has a mind of their own and isn't subject to opinions of others that never leave room for other possibilities".
The thing that you don't understand is that it's YOU who's being unreasonably rigid in the face of overwhelming evidence. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 705
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 16, 2009 - 09:32 am: |
|
Voz said:
Most people have their opinion on what is right and wrong, anyway.
Neecey said:
Exactly my point Voz.
Teleburst said:
It IS a "pure fact" when it comes to what the tipping standard was in the 70s and 80s because I WAS THERE.
Neecey said:
And other people who were there got it wrong? Okay. Kinda sucks when someone tries to tell you what your very own personal experience was doesn't it?
Teleburst said:
You can stay stubborn all you want.
Neecey said:
I can stay open to other possibilities. :-)
Teleburst said:
The thing that you don't understand is that it's YOU who's being unreasonably rigid in the face of overwhelming evidence.
Neecey said:
I don't consider posts on this forum overwhelming evidence. It just bothers you that I don't just give in. Well you wouldn't be the only one. I've always refrained from completely ruling anything out. I'm with the "you never know" mentality and the "never say never". I'm more convinced of human error than anything else so I will usually leave room for the other side. It's such a liberating way to be. But I'm sure all your efforts won't go to waste. You've been very informative and that information will serve it's purpose to those who take it for what it's worth to them.
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
kris
Member
Username: kris
Post Number: 186
Registered: 01-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 12:58 pm: |
|
I haven't been able to get on here for over a WEEK because the website just wouldn't let me. I don't understand why this website is touch and go on when I can get on. It stops at various points, lately I'd get all the way to the forums, but can't get onto the list but am able to see somebody has been posting.
Anyway, I just want to apologize for my vague and unsure musings that caused such a fierce debate. Because the next day, I asked my parents and they just don't know when it changed, and further stated that they only remember it being 15% for the most part. They said maybe it was the fifties.
It seems that I recall my father saying something to me about how it was 10%. Perhaps I remember looking in the Entertainment Book and saying to them they need to tip 15-20% before the discount. At any rate, I do apologize and I'm somewhat disappointed that my parents don't remember anything back when it was 10% but they are getting older. My mother says that there was probably guidelines for tipping published somewhere in the media because she says they just knew it was 15%.
I'm so sorry to all and I just shouldn't have posted anything without confirmation.
At best, I think it is uncertain as to what the norm was in the 70's. |
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3107
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 01:22 pm: |
|
I just wish that people would take me at my word about the 70s. I was actually waiting tables as early in the decade as 1973 (it was my first real job right out of high school and I was waiting tables as a freshman in college) and as late as 1980 (the turn of the decade).
I was obviously aware of what the tipping standards were, since it was a major part of my job. Had 15% been the exception and not the rule, then I would say so, because it's not particularly relevant today to my arguments supporting tipping standards.
Having had my comments supported by material printed at the time, I think that it's fair to say that it's not particularly "uncertain", especially considering what your parents have told you. Thanks for the update, and I share your frustration with this site, especially since I've written Manny several times about this and haven't even had the courtesy of a reply.
Personally, I think it's pretty clear that it changed during the 50s as restaurants became more mainstream and streamlined. It seems logical to tip 10% for counter service and it's easy to forget that tips had to be broken down in fancy restaurants. It also seems logical that those borken down tips might have been consolidated into a higher standard as maitre des, wait captains and coat check girls faded into the past and the server was now the sole recipient of the tip.
If I get any more "original references", I'll post them here, especially if they counter my beliefs. And I hope others will do the same. |
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3110
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 02:48 pm: |
|
Just got back from the used bookstore where they had 1969 and 1984 editions of Emily Post's Guide to Etiquette".
Both editions are unequivocal - "15% is the standard tip in all restaurants" (that's as close to a direct quote as I can remember). They also say that 20% is appropriate for outstanding service.
I suspect that every other reference written in that time frame will say the same thing. I look forward to be proved wrong in that estimate. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 707
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 17, 2009 - 04:11 pm: |
|
The only point that's certain is that there are conflicting accounts of "the norm". That's where my personal stance is. It's appreciated that Teleburst waited tables in the 70's and has a personal account of the tipping norm at that time but the issue was when the 15% average became the automatic norm to actual diners? The 50's, 60's or 70's? At least for me it was. I'm just not anymore convinced than I was when the thread started. But I'm sure there's enough here to satisfy the curiousity of many.
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
kris
Member
Username: kris
Post Number: 191
Registered: 01-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 01:38 pm: |
|
If you may have noted, I did say "at best" it was uncertain, which pretty much means probably unlikely 10% in the seventies. It may still be a tad uncertain because, without reading all previous entries, because I thought there was some doubt.
I was just thinking about something. Did people always look at percent or did they just throw a few bucks down for tip? Or maybe it's just in the movies?
I'm surprised I could get on today. My husband had looked at it once a while back and found nothing wrong at our end. I did email Manny and he said there was nothing wrong at his end either. It's really only this website. But like I said, when I could occasionally get as far to the forums page, I could see someone had posted that day. So, apparently YOU guys can get on the tipping forum thread list, but I couldn't.
Ha! I noticed this yesterday. I had to spell out fifties and seventies because when I had 70's followed by the word IT in the next sentence, it was classified as an error and that those "words" are not allowed on this discussion board. |
kris
Member
Username: kris
Post Number: 192
Registered: 01-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 01:41 pm: |
|
Clarification: I had emailed Manny months ago when I initially came back here. It's just strange that I couldn't get on here an entire week. |
kris
Member
Username: kris
Post Number: 194
Registered: 01-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 03:52 pm: |
|
I apparently have had too much time on my hands today.
One site led to another and I was reading the IMDB board for the movie, Waiting, which I haven't seen.
Came across this thread:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0348333/board/nest/140503761?p=1 |
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3111
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 06:30 pm: |
|
"The only point that's certain is that there are conflicting accounts of "the norm". That's where my personal stance is. It's appreciated that Teleburst waited tables in the 70's and has a personal account of the tipping norm at that time but the issue was when the 15% average became the automatic norm to actual diners? The 50's, 60's or 70's? At least for me it was. I'm just not anymore convinced than I was when the thread started. But I'm sure there's enough here to satisfy the curiousity of many".
I guess this is the closest to a mea culpa that we'll see out of you, so I guess I should be grateful.
Of course you're not "convinced". That's because it's *me* presenting the "evidence".
Sorry you lost one of your lynchpins though. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 708
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 11:05 am: |
|
Teleburst said:
I guess this is the closest to a mea culpa that we'll see out of you, so I guess I should be grateful.
Neecey said:
You don't need to be grateful about anything coming from me. That's another point I try to make, why do you care so much if I agree with you or not? Or if I give in to you? It's apparent that we disagree so why is that such a hard concept to roll with?
Teleburst said:
Sorry you lost one of your lynchpins though.
Neecey said:
I don't get what this means though of course it's pretty irrelevant (expected nothing less).
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3114
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 01:08 pm: |
|
"Teleburst said:
Sorry you lost one of your lynchpins though.
Neecey said:
I don't get what this means though of course it's pretty irrelevant (expected nothing less)".
I meant that you took Kris' statement about her dad saying that it was 10% as a main part of your "proof" that I must be wrong. Of course, it turned out that her parents actually validated my position. But we don't hear about that from you, do we?
"That's another point I try to make, why do you care so much if I agree with you or not?"
I *don't* care whether you agree or disagree. But it *is* annoying when you can't man up and say when you're in error. I think it's your main character flaw (at least on-line). |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 711
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 01:15 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
I meant that you took Kris' statement about her dad saying that it was 10% as a main part of your "proof" that I must be wrong.
Neecey said:
Who said I took her comment as absolute proof? Oh that's right you did. Well we all know what your facts are like. Anyway, I never said you MUST be wrong. That's for individuals to decided. I've decided that there's reasonable doubt on the subject. No one needs to follow my position the same way no one needs to follow yours. It's just one of those things. So Kris was one of my lynchpins huh? Nice that you find the need to categorize posters in this manner.
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 712
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 01:24 pm: |
|
Kris said:
Did people always look at percent or did they just throw a few bucks down for tip?
Neecey said:
yeah, I've thought about that. I'm thinking that's why we can't find much on the whole 10% angle. I think it was more of a throw a few bucks down sorta custom and then it started getting more structured and the guideline more widely advertised and used.
*Disclamer*: Neecey93 has no links or articles to back this statement. There is no verifiable data at this time to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was actually the practice. Please take caution if attempts at this practice are currently made. Neecey93 is not liable for any negative consequences as a result. Bon appetit!
:-)
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3115
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 02:06 pm: |
|
"Teleburst said:
I meant that you took Kris' statement about her dad saying that it was 10% as a main part of your "proof" that I must be wrong.
Neecey said:
Who said I took her comment as absolute proof"?
Certainly not me. What part of "main part of your 'proof' did you not understand? When did you redefine "absolute"?
Just curious.
" I think it was more of a throw a few bucks down sorta custom and then it started getting more structured and the guideline more widely advertised and used".
And yet, there are definite "authorities" that have quoted percentages since 1949.
Just because you "think it" doesn't mean much, especially when there's no evidence of it.
"I've decided that there's reasonable doubt on the subject".
And I've decided that you're wrong. One of us actually has some credible information on the subject. The other is just trying to backpedal as fast as possible to keep from admitting that she's wrong. |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 713
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 03:34 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
What part of "main part of your 'proof' did you not understand?
Neecey said:
But your suggesting that was the foundation of my point. That one account was used as a very simple point that if one person recalls it one way then the voice of others are just as relevant. Her posts also point out that there doesn't seem to be much certainty one way or another. The only person that's certain is you. I question the validity of a person that just always HAS to be right. Your obsessive need to have people say your right makes me skeptical of your input since it seems you need to be right at all costs. Of course you concede here and there *sort of* in order to put some at ease and build credibility but you only do so on your own terms. So what, I'm not a blind follower. I question, disagree and see other possibilites. What's it to you anyway?
Teleburst said:
And yet, there are definite "authorities" that have quoted percentages since 1949.
Neecey said:
And you can take that information however you choose.
Teleburst said:
Just because you "think it" doesn't mean much, especially when there's no evidence of it.
Neecey said:
And just because you take it as gospel doesn't mean it is to all. We don't agree simple as that. :-)
Teleburst said:
And I've decided that you're wrong.
Neecey said:
That's nothing new.
Teleburst said:
One of us actually has some credible information on the subject.
Neecey said:
If you say so. I'm not telling you you don't. I just choose to receive that information differently than you do.
Teleburst said:
The other is just trying to backpedal as fast as possible to keep from admitting that she's wrong.
Neecey said:
There's nothing to backpedal. I don't believe I'm wrong. You can believe I'm wrong. Kris can believe I'm wrong, Voz and Ohioborn (hi guys!) can believe I'm wrong but I'm just not convinced. I think there's reasonable doubt. You may think it's just to disagree with you but I actually have my own reasons although the fact it annoys you so is an added bonus. :-)
(Message edited by neecey93 on September 20, 2009)
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
paid_up
Advanced Member
Username: paid_up
Post Number: 828
Registered: 01-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, September 20, 2009 - 09:09 pm: |
|
Since when do you need evidence when you offer an opinion? It's an opinion, nothing more nothing less. Teleburst you sure get your butt in a snit when things don't go your way. You'll just have to quit talking to ness too. |
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3117
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, September 21, 2009 - 08:51 am: |
|
"I question the validity of a person that just always HAS to be right".
Then how can you possibly live with yourself? |
neecey93
Advanced Member
Username: neecey93
Post Number: 715
Registered: 02-2008
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, September 21, 2009 - 02:19 pm: |
|
Teleburst said:
Then how can you possibly live with yourself?
Neecey said:
Because I've shown that I can see all angles and possibilities. It's quite refreshing. :-) You are the rigid one always wanting people to see only one answer and only one way.
Make love not war! Peace! 8-b
|
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3119
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, September 21, 2009 - 11:14 pm: |
|
That's hilarious. |
paid_up
Advanced Member
Username: paid_up
Post Number: 831
Registered: 01-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - 09:31 am: |
|
I find you quite amusing too teleburst. |
gbowen99
Intermediate Member
Username: gbowen99
Post Number: 514
Registered: 06-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 10:03 am: |
|
So we have "Emily Post and a Vogue Guide to Etiquette" to blame for the hike.
Who takes advice from a sobbery book. Tip according to what you think is fair. |
teleburst
Senior Member
Username: teleburst
Post Number: 3125
Registered: 06-2003
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Don't know what a "sobbery book" is, but your posts are pretty much "sobbery" posts, aren't they? |
kris
Member
Username: kris
Post Number: 201
Registered: 01-2002
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, September 24, 2009 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Well, I'm sobbering. |
|