Home › Forums › West Seattle Food › The Buddha Ruksa Bouncer
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 26, 2010 at 1:25 pm #695035
anonymeParticipantAll we know about the actions of the BR “bouncer” are that he asked that the baby not be allowed to suck on the bottle. The alleged rudeness is really all a matter of interpretation. I would suggest that people often react negatively to being caught out in an embarrassing situation. The impulse is always to blame the other party for being rude, regardless of how diplomatic they tried to be in handling the issue. The BR employee was not only entirely justified in taking action, they were forced into a no-win situation.
May 26, 2010 at 4:09 pm #695036
theeParticipant@16 Pdieter FTW!
May 26, 2010 at 4:59 pm #695037
JustSarahParticipantAnonyme, exactly what I was thinking. That’s why I didn’t even comment on the way the owner acted: the person reporting this encounter already filtered her perception of the event when it happened, then again when writing about it here. Yes, it may have happened just as she says, or it may have been much more polite, but in her embarrassment and anger, she perceived the owner’s behavior differently. And again, people are prone to embellish events when relating them to others in an attempt to curry favor.
May 26, 2010 at 6:12 pm #695038
KBearParticipant“people are prone to embellish events when relating them to others in an attempt to curry favor.”
mmm…. curry!
May 26, 2010 at 7:07 pm #695039
JustSarahParticipantYou’re right, KBear; I totally missed a pun opportunity! Coconut curry favor, pumpkin curry favor… so many delicious choices.
June 19, 2010 at 5:38 am #695040
MJ171MemberThanks to everyone for your postings. I think some of you may have missed my point. Whether it’s technically “legal” for a child to chew on an empty beer bottle, and whether it’s a restaurant owner’s prerogative to protect his liquor license, is neither here nor there. My point is that this restaurant owner acted totally inappropriately in this circumstance. My description of the language used and approach taken are completely accurate. It only seems like an embellishment because of how over the top and ridiculous the owner’s reaction actually was.
June 19, 2010 at 6:19 am #695041
Garden_nymphMemberIs there a reason you are re-muddying the waters with this additional post? To be clear, it is ILLEGAL for a baby to chew on an “empty” beer bottle in a restaurant. Pack a binky! I for one will continue enjoying their “crack chicken” and pumpkin curry!
June 19, 2010 at 6:24 am #695042
JanSParticipantMJ171…here’s my solution to the problem…don’t eat there. It’s that simple. Your rant is a month old…we get it…we don’t have to agree with you. The rules don’t say that. So sorry some people disagreed.
June 19, 2010 at 2:10 pm #695043
anonymeParticipantThe “unembellished” original post does not suggest anything “inappropriate” “over the top” or “ridiculous” by the “bouncer” (no doubt, owner). This language applies more accurately to the reaction of the OP than to the restaurant owner.
June 20, 2010 at 5:45 pm #695044
mav0414Participantthe owner (“bouncer”) was correct, you are wrong.
better yet, in an establishment that serves liquor, leave babies home with a baby sitter. I’m sure other adult patrons would probably had a better dining out experience.
That goes for movie theatres too!!!!!!!
June 21, 2010 at 4:01 pm #695045
KBearParticipantMJ171, you were twice wrong here. Wrong to allow the behavior in the first place, and wrong to overreact about the owner’s overreaction. The owner was right to react, but wrong to overreact. Get over it.
June 21, 2010 at 10:22 pm #695046
DPMemberI beg to differ with some of you latter-day commentators. In my opinion, MJ171 was well justified in being irked.
Like all restaurants, Buddha Ruksa is in the hospitality business. In other words, they don’t just sell food; they sell hospitality.
Of course the owner was entitled to ask MJ not to let the baby play with a beer bottle. No one’s disputing this. But at the same time, said owner was obligated to convey this message as calmly and politely as possible.
—which, for some reason, many of you are disputing.
If the incident occurred as described, the owner of Buddha Ruksa behaved in a very un-Buddha-like way. MJ’s party might have gotten the food they paid for, but they certainly didn’t get the service.
I hope they didn’t leave a tip.
—DP
P.S. Even though I’m with MJ on this one, I would be interested to hear the owner’s side of it.
P.P.S To those of you who suggest that MJ leave the baby at home, find another restaurant, etc. . . . . Go soak your heads.
But I mean that nicely. ;-)
June 21, 2010 at 11:07 pm #695047
WSBKeymasterClosing this one. We’re working on a way for old posts to be non-reopenable (new word), which is an easy configuration for comment threads on the main site, but the forum software is a slightly different bird. Till then, as many folks do, if you see something reopened after weeks or months, we appreciate the flag.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.