Finding restaurants

On 1/26/2015 10:20 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:

snip


A restaurant can have a few menu items that are quite acceptable and
still be a place that should be downgraded for their offerings in
general.

You could go to a Golden Corral and be selective about what you put on
your plate and be quite satisfied with the experience. However, you
might not want to recommend that restaurant to people who have never
been to the place. You don't know what they are going to put on their
plate.


Following that reasoning, you should never recommend any restaurant,
because you have no idea what they will order.


--
PeterN

On 1/26/2015 11:16 AM, PAS wrote:
"Sandman" wrote in message
...
In article , PAS wrote:

Mind you, for this type of car, this is not considered an
overly pricey car. It's great value for the money.

The average price paid in my area for an SRT8 is around
$53,000.00 US. I don't know what enhancements were done to your
car but around here $80,000 is way, way overpriced for a
Charger, even the new Hellcat.

Of course it would be, but cars are a bit pricier in Sweden than
in America.

A fairly maxed out Volvo XC90 is about $100k here.

Do you pay a sliding-scale tax based on engine size? I believe my
cousin in Greece told me that they pay a higher tax on a car when
the engine size exceds 1.4 liters.

Not on the purchase price. We pay an annual vehicle tax (road tax) as
well,
which can differ depending on your Co2 emissions. If you drive a "green
vehicle", i.e. release CO2 below a certain amount, you can get a price
deduction. This has nothing to do with engine size (other than
indirectly).

There is no national standard here in the USA in reagrds to this.

May not be exactly the same, but there is an LCT in the US.

There are also limitations on deductions for use of autos in business,
that apply whether leased or owned.

https://www.strattonfinance.com.au/car-finance/learn/articles/luxury-car-tax-lct-explained.aspx




In
New York, we must register our car every two years. The cost depends on
the weight of the car. My 1545 kilo Subaru Forester costs $175.00 to
register. This is like your annual vehicle tax. In other states, they
may not have a registration fee but charge a "personal property tax".
You can have as alrge or small an engine as you want, there is no tax to
be paid for that. There is what is called a "gas guzzler" tax that is a
one-time amount added into the cost of the car when purchased new, that
is based on cars which do not meet a minimum mpg (miles per gallon)
efficiency.

The vehicle tax is different from vechicle to vehicle, and there are
lists
of vechicles types and model year that determine what you pay.



--
Sandman[.net]



--
PeterN

On 1/26/2015 12:18 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On 26 Jan 2015 16:23:05 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
My wife and I were out of town for part of today, and on the
return we stopped for dinner. To "practice what I preach", we
stopped at a Cracker Barrel.

I ordered chicken and dumplings with corn (giblets) and pinto
beans as the sides. My wife ordered off the breakfast menu and
had pancakes, two eggs, and bacon. Biscuits are provided
instead of bread or rolls. Cracker Barrel's bacon is very good.
The thick kind.

The menu selection is, as I indicated earlier, pretty "basic".

Sandman:
Which, of course, you didn't. You indicated earlier that the
*food* is very basic. You may have meant the menu selection, but
that's not what you said.

The food is also basic. Nothing fancy, no special sauces, not
overly spiced, no complicated preparations.

So the food is "basic", which you indicated earlier - which I interpreted
as "ok", i.e. not "good". And now you've added that the menu selection is
also basic.

You seem to think that "basic" food is somehow not good, and saying
that a restaurant serves basic food is not a recommendation.

Yes, that was in fact what I thought. If I were to ask a friend if I should
eat at a particular Sibylla bar, and he replied "Well, the food is pretty
basic", I would not consider that to be a recommendation, no. I would chalk
it down to him saying pretty much that it's "ok".

And, of course - and I know how much you hate this - the old dictionary
supports this:

basic
adjective
- forming an essential foundation or starting point; fundamental
- offering or consisting in the minimum required without elaboration or
luxury; simplest or lowest in level

One of the examples is "the food was good, if a bit basic", which most
certainly sets it smack down in the middle of "ok" in the scale. Not above
average.

You have a habit of trying to understand English using the limited
definitions that are the first to appear in a dictionary. To be truly
fluent in English, you need to go beyond those first-in-order
definitions and learn that all words are not narrowly defined by these
first-in-order definitions.

For example, read this review of a restaurant:
http://www.omaha.com/go/dining-revie...957bb76d2.html

Most readers would read this and consider it to be a recommendation to
try this restaurant. You, however, might read the entire article and
be put off by the last paragraph:

"Mouth of the South doesn’t feel manufactured. The ingredients here,
like the restaurant itself, are basic and welcoming. It’s a reminder
that things don’t have to be high-end to be good and that sometimes
simple is best."

The author of that article is using "basic" as I have: simple, no
frills.

Or, read this restaurant review:
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/N...n-a-866754.php

Again, "basic" is used to describe simple food and a menu selection
that includes only certain items. The review, though, suggests that
this restaurant is far above just "OK".

To truly understand English as it is written by Americans, you need to
be aware of context and how words are used in that context. In food
and restaurant context, "basic" is almost always an indicator of range
of selection and ingredients. It does not connote quality or
acceptability of the items in that range. "Basic fare" can be very
good because it is preparation that makes basic fare good or bad.

You, though, jump on your first understanding of the use of word and
refuse to acknowledge that your first understanding can be completely
wrong. You refuse to learn that your first understanding is not
always the understanding that those who are more familiar with English
usage would come away with.

It's emphasized by your sentence above "the food was good, if a bit
basic" being taken as "not above average". The "good" in that
sentence sets it above average, and the "basic" identifies the
ingredients as plain fare. Plain fare can certainly be far more than
OK.


The meanings of words, in context, don't appear in his dictionary. For
reasons previoously stated, I have no intention of giving him English
lessons.

--
PeterN

On 1/26/2015 1:33 PM, Savageduck wrote:
PeterN wrote:
On 1/26/2015 9:40 AM, PAS wrote:


One of my favorite dishes is Pastitsio. Some call it "Greek Lasagna"
but it's not at all like lasagna unless you consoder a dish that
contains pasta and meat to be lasagna. It is made with a tick layer of
Bechamel sauce on it. A lot of the Greek Diners here what other types
of diners are there on Long Island?) prepare this dish very nicely. I
ordered it once and it was brought to me with tomato sauce on it. I
asked the waitress why it had tomoato sauce on it and she told me that's
the way it is served because customers expected something like that to
have tomato sauce on it. Strangely, the menu descirbed the dish
perfectly with no mention of tomato sauce, it ruined the dish. IMO,
tomato and bechamel do not mix.

Yep!
For Greek food we either go to Ethos, in Great Neck, or MP Taverna in Roslyn.

I am not sure how you made the lead from Greek food to diners in general.

Most diners have what I call pseudo [fill in the blank] food. However
most diner food is quick and clean. I never expect a great meal at any
diner. My pet peeve with any eating establishment is when they charge
extra for refills on iced tea or seltzer water.


I have found diners, for the most part, serve pretty good food from, dare I
say it, a basic menu. Some can be run of the mill, and some can be
exceptional. There are two truck stop diners I would not hesitate to
recommend to travelers on the road North from Paso Robles.


It flows from his reference to Greek Diners.


--
PeterN

On 1/26/2015 2:32 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:42:07 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/26/2015 10:20 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:

snip


A restaurant can have a few menu items that are quite acceptable and
still be a place that should be downgraded for their offerings in
general.

You could go to a Golden Corral and be selective about what you put on
your plate and be quite satisfied with the experience. However, you
might not want to recommend that restaurant to people who have never
been to the place. You don't know what they are going to put on their
plate.


Following that reasoning, you should never recommend any restaurant,
because you have no idea what they will order.

That's the problem with making recommendations in a group like this.
Tastes vary. I like Cracker Barrel and others have said they like the
place. Your review was that the food is "edible"; a bare step above
inedible.

I tend to be reserved in my recommendations because of this. My
"basic" comment was interpreted to mean barely OK when it was intended
to be rather neutral. There are places, and people, where you just
can't win no matter what you say.


It's more "certain" people, rather than places.

--
PeterN

On 1/26/2015 2:37 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 13:54:28 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 1/26/2015 12:18 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On 26 Jan 2015 16:23:05 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Andreas Skitsnack:
My wife and I were out of town for part of today, and on the
return we stopped for dinner. To "practice what I preach", we
stopped at a Cracker Barrel.

I ordered chicken and dumplings with corn (giblets) and pinto
beans as the sides. My wife ordered off the breakfast menu and
had pancakes, two eggs, and bacon. Biscuits are provided
instead of bread or rolls. Cracker Barrel's bacon is very good.
The thick kind.

The menu selection is, as I indicated earlier, pretty "basic".

Sandman:
Which, of course, you didn't. You indicated earlier that the
*food* is very basic. You may have meant the menu selection, but
that's not what you said.

The food is also basic. Nothing fancy, no special sauces, not
overly spiced, no complicated preparations.

So the food is "basic", which you indicated earlier - which I interpreted
as "ok", i.e. not "good". And now you've added that the menu selection is
also basic.

You seem to think that "basic" food is somehow not good, and saying
that a restaurant serves basic food is not a recommendation.

Yes, that was in fact what I thought. If I were to ask a friend if I should
eat at a particular Sibylla bar, and he replied "Well, the food is pretty
basic", I would not consider that to be a recommendation, no. I would chalk
it down to him saying pretty much that it's "ok".

And, of course - and I know how much you hate this - the old dictionary
supports this:

basic
adjective
- forming an essential foundation or starting point; fundamental
- offering or consisting in the minimum required without elaboration or
luxury; simplest or lowest in level

One of the examples is "the food was good, if a bit basic", which most
certainly sets it smack down in the middle of "ok" in the scale. Not above
average.

You have a habit of trying to understand English using the limited
definitions that are the first to appear in a dictionary. To be truly
fluent in English, you need to go beyond those first-in-order
definitions and learn that all words are not narrowly defined by these
first-in-order definitions.

For example, read this review of a restaurant:
http://www.omaha.com/go/dining-revie...957bb76d2.html

Most readers would read this and consider it to be a recommendation to
try this restaurant. You, however, might read the entire article and
be put off by the last paragraph:

"Mouth of the South doesn’t feel manufactured. The ingredients here,
like the restaurant itself, are basic and welcoming. It’s a reminder
that things don’t have to be high-end to be good and that sometimes
simple is best."

The author of that article is using "basic" as I have: simple, no
frills.

Or, read this restaurant review:
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/N...n-a-866754.php

Again, "basic" is used to describe simple food and a menu selection
that includes only certain items. The review, though, suggests that
this restaurant is far above just "OK".

To truly understand English as it is written by Americans, you need to
be aware of context and how words are used in that context. In food
and restaurant context, "basic" is almost always an indicator of range
of selection and ingredients. It does not connote quality or
acceptability of the items in that range. "Basic fare" can be very
good because it is preparation that makes basic fare good or bad.

You, though, jump on your first understanding of the use of word and
refuse to acknowledge that your first understanding can be completely
wrong. You refuse to learn that your first understanding is not
always the understanding that those who are more familiar with English
usage would come away with.

It's emphasized by your sentence above "the food was good, if a bit
basic" being taken as "not above average". The "good" in that
sentence sets it above average, and the "basic" identifies the
ingredients as plain fare. Plain fare can certainly be far more than
OK.


The meanings of words, in context, don't appear in his dictionary. For
reasons previoously stated, I have no intention of giving him English
lessons.

I participate in other forums where there are English learners. The
learner with manners and class, when informed of a usage that he's not
familiar with, responds with something like "Thanks. I wasn't aware
of that meaning" and files that information away for future use.

The Popinjay, though, thinks he is never wrong and argues with all
corrections. It just makes him look foolish.

One does wonder, though, if he just tries too hard to "save face" here
and secretly absorbs the information and corrects himself later in
other uses.

Which is exactly why I don't bother to correct him, unless he presents
bad information, which could mislead others.



--
PeterN

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

basic adjective - forming an essential foundation or starting
point; fundamental - offering or consisting in the minimum
required without elaboration or luxury; simplest or lowest in
level

One of the examples is "the food was good, if a bit basic", which
most certainly sets it smack down in the middle of "ok" in the
scale. Not above average.

You have a habit of trying to understand English using the limited
definitions that are the first to appear in a dictionary.

You have a habit of not understanding much of any word in the English
language.

To be truly fluent in English, you need to go beyond those first-in-order
definitions and learn that all words are not narrowly defined by these
first-in-order definitions.

Of course. We have that source of those "accepted" words to take into
account, only known to you, of course. I've been unable to acquire a volume
of that:

http://jonaseklundh.se/files/GreatBookofAcceptedWords.jpg

For example, read this review of a restaurant:
http://www.omaha.com/go/dining-revie...957bb76d2.html

Most readers would read this and consider it to be a recommendation
to try this restaurant. You, however, might read the entire article
and be put off by the last paragraph:

"Mouth of the South doesn't feel manufactured. The ingredients here,
like the restaurant itself, are basic and welcoming. It's a reminder
that things don't have to be high-end to be good and that sometimes
simple is best."

Not at all - a lot of above-average adjectives there, like "good" and
"best". So the reviewer thinks the ingredients and the restaurant is basic
as per the definition of the word, and he adds that in spite of that, the
restaurant is good and that the simplicity in itself is something positive.
I.e. he has added qualifiers to his statement that makes it obvious that
his opinion of the restaurant is more than just "ok".

The author of that article is using "basic" as I have: simple, no
frills.

Yes, this may be true - this may have indeed been what you wanted to
portray with the comment "the food is basic", but to a reader, and without
qualifier - that's not readily obvious.

I asked for good restaurants, you replied with a number of restaurants,
most of which you considered bad, and one which you labeled "ok" and one
with you said had "basic food". One would think that if a person asks
another person to suggest good restaurants, the one replying wouldn't use
such descriptions without qualifier if he intended to say that the
restaurant met the demand, hence me interpretation that "basic food" =
"ok", instead of "basic food" = "good restaurant".

If it was the other way around, I wouldn't label downtown restaurants where
I live as having "basic food" if I wanted to endorse them as good
restaurants.

Or, read this restaurant review:
http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/N...n-a-866754.php

Again, "basic" is used to describe simple food and a menu selection
that includes only certain items. The review, though, suggests that
this restaurant is far above just "OK".

In fact, the "basic" seems to come from the restaurant itself, not the
reviewer:

'In my book, the restaurant lives up to its online claim of serving
"basic Italian food at reasonable prices."'

To truly understand English as it is written by Americans, you need
to be aware of context and how words are used in that context.

Which is why I am educating you in the use of qualifiers (i.e. context).
Consider these examples:

1. The food was horrible, very basic, nothing special
2. The food was better than I had anticipated, even though it was basic

Contrasted with:

3. The food was very basic

Context is the surrounding information that form a setting for a specific
word or sentence. Words can mean very different things, and context is
important. When you leave out the qualifiers (i.e. the possible context)
that makes your statement either positive or negative, the reader is left
on his own to make an interpretation.

So, this is what you said:

"I would suggest Cracker Barrel as a place where the food is very basic"

Which means that you would suggest this restaurant, which is positive
context, but adds - without qualifier - that the food is very basic. So me,
the recipient, took this to mean that this is an "ok" restaurant amongst
many crap restaurants, which certainly makes it qualify as an endorsement,
which was never in contention.

You then later wanted to retcon this in to you saying that this is a *good*
restaurant, and that you meant that the *menu variety* was basic, which
your initial statement did not convey.

In food and restaurant context, "basic" is almost always an indicator of
range of selection and ingredients.

Of course. The disagreement here is whether "the food is very basic" is
synonymous to "it's a good restaurant".

You, though, jump on your first understanding of the use of word and
refuse to acknowledge that your first understanding can be completely
wrong.

This is incorrect. I took your "very basic food" to mean "ok restaurant"
instead of "good restaurant", which you may or may not have meant to imply.
I then later showed you the definition of the word to support how my
interpretation of your statement was fully logical.

You refuse to learn that your first understanding is not always the
understanding that those who are more familiar with English usage would
come away with.

Get down from your high horse before you hurt yourself.

It's emphasized by your sentence above "the food was good, if a bit
basic" being taken as "not above average". The "good" in that
sentence sets it above average, and the "basic" identifies the
ingredients as plain fare.

Yes, *because* it has a qualifier to the word "basic".

Compare, again:

1. I would suggest Cracker Barrel as a place where the food is very basic
2. I wouldn't suggest Cracker Barrel since it's a place where the food is
very basic

Both are perfectly viable sentence, and the word "basic" can go either way
- depending on the *context*.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , PeterN wrote:

It's emphasized by your sentence above "the food was good, if a
bit basic" being taken as "not above average". The "good" in that
sentence sets it above average, and the "basic" identifies the
ingredients as plain fare. Plain fare can certainly be far more
than OK.

The meanings of words, in context, don't appear in his dictionary.
For reasons previoously stated, I have no intention of giving him
English lessons.

Well, that's a relief!

And it's also ironic, given the fact that it's the context that is working
against Andreas in this case.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

PeterN:
The meanings of words, in context, don't appear in his dictionary.
For reasons previoously stated, I have no intention of giving him
English lessons.

I participate in other forums where there are English learners. The
learner with manners and class, when informed of a usage that he's
not familiar with, responds with something like "Thanks. I wasn't
aware of that meaning" and files that information away for future
use.

Indeed - I am one of those persons! I really enjoy learning new nuances of
the English language, or the Swedish language for that matter.

When blowhard illiterate trolls in a photo newsgroup tries to sit on high
horses about the English language, when they don't even know what basic
words such as "standard", "imply", "requirement" or "protocol" means tries
to tell me something, I just smile to myself.

The Popinjay, though, thinks he is never wrong and argues with all
corrections. It just makes him look foolish.

You know, your rant would be a little more believable if I hadn't admitted
to making errors many many times, thanked for the correction and treated
the person in an adult and friendly manner.

Even you, no less! Amazing, I know! There have been actual occasions where
you have been correct about a word usage!

One does wonder, though, if he just tries too hard to "save face"
here and secretly absorbs the information and corrects himself later
in other uses.

Ironic!


--
Sandman[.net]

Tony Cooper wrote:

On 27 Jan 2015 09:46:56 GMT, Sandman wrote:

http://jonaseklundh.se/files/GreatBookofAcceptedWords.jpg

Well done, Jonas. It's a surprise and a pleasure to see something
from you embodying a little imagination.

It did encourage me to take a peek at your bookshelf. I found:

"Popinjay's Journal of Misused English Words" Volumes I, II, III and
IV.

this is very often brought to mind by the discussions here over words

https://www.dropbox.com/s/5d1n07yhly...ndman.jpg?dl=0


--
sid