Thread: Sushi includes Rice

On 2/25/2011 4:13 AM, Goomba wrote:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-la...6087649.column
>
> latimes.com
> Diabetic's discrimination lawsuit against restaurant is hard to swallow
> A Studio City sushi restaurant is taken to court by an all-you-can-eat
> customer.
>
> David Lazarus
>
> 8:29 PM PST, February 17, 2011
> Advertisement
>
> David Martin was in the mood for raw fish, and he liked the deal offered
> by a Studio City sushi restaurant: all you can eat for $28.

I suppose he could have asked if all you can eat sashimi was included
before being seated?

>
> He took a seat at the counter and started ordering. But it turned out
> that Martin didn't really want sushi, which includes rice; he wanted
> all-you-can-eat sashimi, which is just fish. He began picking the
> seafood off the top and leaving the rice.
>
> Restaurant owner Jay Oh told Martin that if he wanted the
> all-you-can-eat price, he'd have to eat the rice too and not just fill
> up on fish. Martin replied that he has diabetes and that he can't eat rice.
>
> Oh said he offered to prepare sashimi for Martin. Two orders of sashimi
> cost $25, or $3 less than the all-you-can-eat sushi deal. But Oh said
> Martin declined the offer.
>
> Martin left the restaurant after being charged a la carte prices for the
> sushi he'd already ordered plus $1 for a cup of green tea.
>
> Two weeks later, Martin filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
> It seeks at least $4,000 in damages for the "humiliation, embarrassment
> and mental anguish" Martin says he suffered after being discriminated
> against "on the basis of his disability."
>
> Discrimination, or shakedown?
>
> Oh says it's the latter, and is determined to go to trial, even if the
> eventual legal cost tops the $6,000 Martin subsequently demanded to make
> his lawsuit go away.
>
> "I have to fight this," Oh told me over green tea at A Ca-Shi Sushi
> before the dinner rush. "Why do I have to give this person money? I
> didn't do anything wrong."
>
> Martin couldn't be reached for comment. But his attorney, Stuart E.
> Cohen, said that "we are not after money, but a change in A Ca-Shi's
> thinking and policy."

How horrible, a restaurant owner defines what will be served and the
terms. Who does he think he is? Shouldn't people be able to get whatever
they want without rules?

>
> "I would rather like to see A Ca-Shi succeed on a level playing field,
> not a discriminatory one," he said.
>
> I should note here that I have Type 1 diabetes and I can sympathize with
> the frustration Martin feels in not being able to eat anything he'd
> like. This is a difficult disease to manage, requiring willpower and
> discipline.
>
> That said, I'm with Oh on this one.
>
> If it's Oh's policy that you eat everything you're served if you want
> the all-you-can-eat price, then that's the policy. If you don't like it,
> don't go there again. Or pay the a la carte price and eat whatever you
> want. Or order the sashimi for goodness' sake and don't make such a fuss.
>
> "The rice is part of the all-you-can-eat sushi," Oh said. "If you only
> eat the fish, I would go broke."
>
> Martin says in his lawsuit that he has Type 2 diabetes, which means his
> body still produces insulin but doesn't process it well. A Type 1
> diabetic, by contrast, no longer produces insulin and must inject the
> hormone before every meal to keep blood sugar levels under control.
>
> Many people with Type 2 diabetes, including Martin, take pills to treat
> their condition and often try to limit their intake of carbohydrates,
> such as carb-heavy rice.
>
> Unlike him, I do have to inject insulin before I eat, but that doesn't
> stop me from enjoying sushi, pasta, pizza or other foods bulging with
> carbs. I just dose correctly for the meal. Rice will harm a diabetic
> only if the diabetic chooses to be harmed.
>
> More to the point, I expect no special favors because of my illness. If
> a restaurant doesn't serve what I want — all-you-can-eat sashimi, say —
> I go somewhere else.
>
> Yes, diabetes is officially classified as a disability. But it's not
> debilitating. I've met plenty of other people in wheelchairs or with
> seeing-eye dogs who cope with far greater challenges than I face. And I
> seldom hear them complaining about being discriminated against.
>
> You play the hand you've been dealt.
>
> Cohen, Martin's attorney, said his client "has frequented numerous sushi
> bars and not once has he ever been demanded to eat rice upon explaining
> that he is diabetic." So go back to those places.
>
> The only thing Martin has proved with his lawsuit is that he has
> problems accepting other people's quite reasonable rules. The fact that
> he offered to drop his suit in return for a payout of $6,000 isn't
> exactly the hallmark of a civil rights champion.

But shouldn't people be able to invent their own rules if they don't
like existing rules?

>
> The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Feb. 25. Oh's lawyer,
> Joyce J. Cho, said she's filed a motion for the lawsuit to be dismissed
> because it lacks legal merit, but she expects the case to eventually
> come to trial later this year.
>
> Meanwhile, Martin's attorney said he intends "to reach out and work with
> the American Diabetes Assn. to create local directories of
> diabetic-friendly or not-friendly establishments."


Is this before or after he adds another Mercedes SL65 to his collection
for being a sleezeball attorney?

>
> Perhaps I can help. In my experience, there's no such thing as a
> diabetic-friendly or not-friendly business.
>
> Just friendly and not-friendly diabetics.
>
> David Lazarus' column runs Tuesdays and Fridays. He also can be seen
> daily on KTLA-TV Channel 5. Send your tips or feedback to
> [email protected].
>
> Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:13:35 -0500, Goomba <[email protected]>
wrote:

>http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-la...6087649.column
>
>latimes.com
>Diabetic's discrimination lawsuit against restaurant is hard to swallow
>A Studio City sushi restaurant is taken to court by an all-you-can-eat
>customer.
>
>David Lazarus
>
>8:29 PM PST, February 17, 2011
>Advertisement
>
>David Martin was in the mood for raw fish, and he liked the deal offered
>by a Studio City sushi restaurant: all you can eat for $28.
>
>He took a seat at the counter and started ordering. But it turned out
>that Martin didn't really want sushi, which includes rice; he wanted
>all-you-can-eat sashimi, which is just fish. He began picking the
>seafood off the top and leaving the rice.
>
>Restaurant owner Jay Oh told Martin that if he wanted the
>all-you-can-eat price, he'd have to eat the rice too and not just fill
>up on fish. Martin replied that he has diabetes and that he can't eat rice.
>
>Oh said he offered to prepare sashimi for Martin. Two orders of sashimi
>cost $25, or $3 less than the all-you-can-eat sushi deal. But Oh said
>Martin declined the offer.
>
>Martin left the restaurant after being charged a la carte prices for the
>sushi he'd already ordered plus $1 for a cup of green tea.
>
>Two weeks later, Martin filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
>It seeks at least $4,000 in damages for the "humiliation, embarrassment
>and mental anguish" Martin says he suffered after being discriminated
>against "on the basis of his disability."
>
>Discrimination, or shakedown?
>
>Oh says it's the latter, and is determined to go to trial, even if the
>eventual legal cost tops the $6,000 Martin subsequently demanded to make
>his lawsuit go away.
>
>"I have to fight this," Oh told me over green tea at A Ca-Shi Sushi
>before the dinner rush. "Why do I have to give this person money? I
>didn't do anything wrong."
>
>Martin couldn't be reached for comment. But his attorney, Stuart E.
>Cohen, said that "we are not after money, but a change in A Ca-Shi's
>thinking and policy."
>
>"I would rather like to see A Ca-Shi succeed on a level playing field,
>not a discriminatory one," he said.
>
>I should note here that I have Type 1 diabetes and I can sympathize with
>the frustration Martin feels in not being able to eat anything he'd
>like. This is a difficult disease to manage, requiring willpower and
>discipline.
>
>That said, I'm with Oh on this one.
>
>If it's Oh's policy that you eat everything you're served if you want
>the all-you-can-eat price, then that's the policy. If you don't like it,
>don't go there again. Or pay the a la carte price and eat whatever you
>want. Or order the sashimi for goodness' sake and don't make such a fuss.
>
>"The rice is part of the all-you-can-eat sushi," Oh said. "If you only
>eat the fish, I would go broke."
>
>Martin says in his lawsuit that he has Type 2 diabetes, which means his
>body still produces insulin but doesn't process it well. A Type 1
>diabetic, by contrast, no longer produces insulin and must inject the
>hormone before every meal to keep blood sugar levels under control.
>
>Many people with Type 2 diabetes, including Martin, take pills to treat
>their condition and often try to limit their intake of carbohydrates,
>such as carb-heavy rice.
>
>Unlike him, I do have to inject insulin before I eat, but that doesn't
>stop me from enjoying sushi, pasta, pizza or other foods bulging with
>carbs. I just dose correctly for the meal. Rice will harm a diabetic
>only if the diabetic chooses to be harmed.
>
>More to the point, I expect no special favors because of my illness. If
>a restaurant doesn't serve what I want — all-you-can-eat sashimi, say —
>I go somewhere else.
>
>Yes, diabetes is officially classified as a disability. But it's not
>debilitating. I've met plenty of other people in wheelchairs or with
>seeing-eye dogs who cope with far greater challenges than I face. And I
>seldom hear them complaining about being discriminated against.
>
>You play the hand you've been dealt.
>
>Cohen, Martin's attorney, said his client "has frequented numerous sushi
>bars and not once has he ever been demanded to eat rice upon explaining
>that he is diabetic." So go back to those places.
>
>The only thing Martin has proved with his lawsuit is that he has
>problems accepting other people's quite reasonable rules. The fact that
>he offered to drop his suit in return for a payout of $6,000 isn't
>exactly the hallmark of a civil rights champion.
>
>The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Feb. 25. Oh's lawyer,
>Joyce J. Cho, said she's filed a motion for the lawsuit to be dismissed
>because it lacks legal merit, but she expects the case to eventually
>come to trial later this year.
>
>Meanwhile, Martin's attorney said he intends "to reach out and work with
>the American Diabetes Assn. to create local directories of
>diabetic-friendly or not-friendly establishments."
>
>Perhaps I can help. In my experience, there's no such thing as a
>diabetic-friendly or not-friendly business.
>
>Just friendly and not-friendly diabetics.
>
>David Lazarus' column runs Tuesdays and Fridays. He also can be seen
>daily on KTLA-TV Channel 5. Send your tips or feedback to
>[email protected]
>
>Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

First the litigant would need to prove that diabetes is a
disability... diabetes is no more a disability than zits/acne.
In any other state the courts would not hear this case, but the
California judicial system is more ****ed up than Libya's.

At every "All You Can Eat" restaurant I've ever been to the
establishment has the right not to serve patrons when they don't eat
what they take. At Las Vegas 'all you can eats' I've seen them escort
folks to the door when they left plates heaped with food while going
to get more. In US military mess halls there is always a large sign:
"Take All You Want, Eat All You Take". He took the rice, he has to
eat it all to be served more. Even Nathan's Famous hot dog eating
contest requires that entrants eat the entire bun before grabbing the
next dawg. In NY that putz would be tarred, rolled in rice, and rode
out of town on a rail with a fistful of wasabi stuffed up his ass.

On 2/25/2011 10:12 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 04:13:35 -0500, Goomba<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-la...6087649.column
>>
>> latimes.com
>> Diabetic's discrimination lawsuit against restaurant is hard to swallow
>> A Studio City sushi restaurant is taken to court by an all-you-can-eat
>> customer.
>>
>> David Lazarus
>>
>> 8:29 PM PST, February 17, 2011
>> Advertisement
>>
>> David Martin was in the mood for raw fish, and he liked the deal offered
>> by a Studio City sushi restaurant: all you can eat for $28.
>>
>> He took a seat at the counter and started ordering. But it turned out
>> that Martin didn't really want sushi, which includes rice; he wanted
>> all-you-can-eat sashimi, which is just fish. He began picking the
>> seafood off the top and leaving the rice.
>>
>> Restaurant owner Jay Oh told Martin that if he wanted the
>> all-you-can-eat price, he'd have to eat the rice too and not just fill
>> up on fish. Martin replied that he has diabetes and that he can't eat rice.
>>
>> Oh said he offered to prepare sashimi for Martin. Two orders of sashimi
>> cost $25, or $3 less than the all-you-can-eat sushi deal. But Oh said
>> Martin declined the offer.
>>
>> Martin left the restaurant after being charged a la carte prices for the
>> sushi he'd already ordered plus $1 for a cup of green tea.
>>
>> Two weeks later, Martin filed suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
>> It seeks at least $4,000 in damages for the "humiliation, embarrassment
>> and mental anguish" Martin says he suffered after being discriminated
>> against "on the basis of his disability."
>>
>> Discrimination, or shakedown?
>>
>> Oh says it's the latter, and is determined to go to trial, even if the
>> eventual legal cost tops the $6,000 Martin subsequently demanded to make
>> his lawsuit go away.
>>
>> "I have to fight this," Oh told me over green tea at A Ca-Shi Sushi
>> before the dinner rush. "Why do I have to give this person money? I
>> didn't do anything wrong."
>>
>> Martin couldn't be reached for comment. But his attorney, Stuart E.
>> Cohen, said that "we are not after money, but a change in A Ca-Shi's
>> thinking and policy."
>>
>> "I would rather like to see A Ca-Shi succeed on a level playing field,
>> not a discriminatory one," he said.
>>
>> I should note here that I have Type 1 diabetes and I can sympathize with
>> the frustration Martin feels in not being able to eat anything he'd
>> like. This is a difficult disease to manage, requiring willpower and
>> discipline.
>>
>> That said, I'm with Oh on this one.
>>
>> If it's Oh's policy that you eat everything you're served if you want
>> the all-you-can-eat price, then that's the policy. If you don't like it,
>> don't go there again. Or pay the a la carte price and eat whatever you
>> want. Or order the sashimi for goodness' sake and don't make such a fuss.
>>
>> "The rice is part of the all-you-can-eat sushi," Oh said. "If you only
>> eat the fish, I would go broke."
>>
>> Martin says in his lawsuit that he has Type 2 diabetes, which means his
>> body still produces insulin but doesn't process it well. A Type 1
>> diabetic, by contrast, no longer produces insulin and must inject the
>> hormone before every meal to keep blood sugar levels under control.
>>
>> Many people with Type 2 diabetes, including Martin, take pills to treat
>> their condition and often try to limit their intake of carbohydrates,
>> such as carb-heavy rice.
>>
>> Unlike him, I do have to inject insulin before I eat, but that doesn't
>> stop me from enjoying sushi, pasta, pizza or other foods bulging with
>> carbs. I just dose correctly for the meal. Rice will harm a diabetic
>> only if the diabetic chooses to be harmed.
>>
>> More to the point, I expect no special favors because of my illness. If
>> a restaurant doesn't serve what I want — all-you-can-eat sashimi, say —
>> I go somewhere else.
>>
>> Yes, diabetes is officially classified as a disability. But it's not
>> debilitating. I've met plenty of other people in wheelchairs or with
>> seeing-eye dogs who cope with far greater challenges than I face. And I
>> seldom hear them complaining about being discriminated against.
>>
>> You play the hand you've been dealt.
>>
>> Cohen, Martin's attorney, said his client "has frequented numerous sushi
>> bars and not once has he ever been demanded to eat rice upon explaining
>> that he is diabetic." So go back to those places.
>>
>> The only thing Martin has proved with his lawsuit is that he has
>> problems accepting other people's quite reasonable rules. The fact that
>> he offered to drop his suit in return for a payout of $6,000 isn't
>> exactly the hallmark of a civil rights champion.
>>
>> The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Feb. 25. Oh's lawyer,
>> Joyce J. Cho, said she's filed a motion for the lawsuit to be dismissed
>> because it lacks legal merit, but she expects the case to eventually
>> come to trial later this year.
>>
>> Meanwhile, Martin's attorney said he intends "to reach out and work with
>> the American Diabetes Assn. to create local directories of
>> diabetic-friendly or not-friendly establishments."
>>
>> Perhaps I can help. In my experience, there's no such thing as a
>> diabetic-friendly or not-friendly business.
>>
>> Just friendly and not-friendly diabetics.
>>
>> David Lazarus' column runs Tuesdays and Fridays. He also can be seen
>> daily on KTLA-TV Channel 5. Send your tips or feedback to
>> [email protected].
>>
>> Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
>
> First the litigant would need to prove that diabetes is a
> disability... diabetes is no more a disability than zits/acne.
> In any other state the courts would not hear this case, but the
> California judicial system is more ****ed up than Libya's.
>
> At every "All You Can Eat" restaurant I've ever been to the
> establishment has the right not to serve patrons when they don't eat
> what they take. At Las Vegas 'all you can eats' I've seen them escort
> folks to the door when they left plates heaped with food while going
> to get more. In US military mess halls there is always a large sign:
> "Take All You Want, Eat All You Take". He took the rice, he has to
> eat it all to be served more. Even Nathan's Famous hot dog eating
> contest requires that entrants eat the entire bun before grabbing the
> next dawg. In NY that putz would be tarred, rolled in rice, and rode
> out of town on a rail with a fistful of wasabi stuffed up his ass.

I have to admit that the two Japanese buffets around here that I like
each have notices saying approximately "We do not serve sashimi in the
buffet. Anyone not eating the rice will incur an extra charge." This
seems entirely reasonable to me. It is unfortunate that someone may have
to avoid a sushi buffet because of this policy but that is hardly a
great imposition or a discrimination. I don't think I want to know the
litigious Mr. Martin.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

"Not": obvious change in "Reply To"

"Goomba" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-la...6087649.column
>
> latimes.com
> Diabetic's discrimination lawsuit against restaurant is hard to swallow
> A Studio City sushi restaurant is taken to court by an all-you-can-eat
> customer.
>
> David Lazarus
>
> 8:29 PM PST, February 17, 2011
> Advertisement
>
> David Martin was in the mood for raw fish, and he liked the deal offered
> by a Studio City sushi restaurant: all you can eat for $28.
>
> He took a seat at the counter and started ordering. But it turned out that
> Martin didn't really want sushi, which includes rice; he wanted
> all-you-can-eat sashimi, which is just fish. He began picking the seafood
> off the top and leaving the rice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushi

Sushi (���寿�, 鮨, 鮓, 寿斗, 寿�, 壽�?) is a Japanese dish consisting of cooked
vinegared rice which is commonly topped with other ingredients, such as fish
or other seafood,[1] or put into rolls. Sliced raw fish by itself is called
sashimi, as distinct from sushi. Sushi that is served rolled inside or
around nori, dried and pressed sheets of seaweed, is makizushi. Toppings
stuffed into a small pouch of fried tofu is inarizushi. A bowl of sushi rice
with toppings scattered over it is called chirashizushi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sashimi

Sashimi (Japanese: 刺身, pronounced [saɕimiꜜ]; English: /səˈʃi�mi�/) is a
Japanese delicacy. It primarily consists of very fresh raw seafood, sliced
into thin pieces, and served only with a dipping sauce (soy sauce with
wasabi paste or such condiments as grated fresh ginger, or ponzu), and such
garnishes as shiso and shredded daikon radish. Dimensions vary but are
typically about 2.5 cm (1") wide by 4 cm (1.5") long by 0.5 cm (0.2") thick.
The word sashimi means "pierced body", i.e. "刺身 = sashimi = 刺� = sashi
(pierced, stuck) and 身 = mi (body, meat). This word dates from the Muromachi
period, and was possibly coined when the word "切る = kiru (cut), the culinary
step, was considered too inauspicious to be used by anyone other than
Samurai. This word may derive from the culinary practice of sticking the
fish's tail and fin to the slices in identifying the fish being eaten.


The patron is an idiot!

Dimitri

Goomba wrote:

> Martin says in his lawsuit that he has Type 2 diabetes, which means
> his body still produces insulin but doesn't process it well. A Type 1
> diabetic, by contrast, no longer produces insulin and must inject the
> hormone before every meal to keep blood sugar levels under control.
>
> Many people with Type 2 diabetes, including Martin, take pills to
> treat their condition and often try to limit their intake of
> carbohydrates, such as carb-heavy rice.
>
> Unlike him, I do have to inject insulin before I eat, but that doesn't
> stop me from enjoying sushi, pasta, pizza or other foods bulging with
> carbs. I just dose correctly for the meal. Rice will harm a diabetic
> only if the diabetic chooses to be harmed.

Generally I agree. But...a T2 who is not on insulin has NO WAY to "cover"
the carbs in the rice. The pill most commonly taken by a T2, metformin, does
not cover extra carbs with extra insulin production. (Leaving aside the
issue of insulin resistance, which aflicts most T2s.) So the only way a T2
who is not on insulin can avoid being "harmed" by rice is not to eat it, or
to eat only the small amount that will not produce a BG spike over 140,
probably no more than 1/4-1/3 cup at most.

The restaurant owner should have explained his policy to the customer
diplomatically--and privately--for future reference, and if it was such a
big deal seen to it that the menu stated the policy in the future. He
should have let this one go. One customer eating fish was not going to break
him. What does this guy do when a customer sends a dish back? Refuse to
take it because if everyone did he would go broke? I doubt it.

> More to the point, I expect no special favors because of my illness.
> If a restaurant doesn't serve what I want — all-you-can-eat sashimi, say
> — I go somewhere else.

I agree. (I'm a T2, BTW.) I also agree that this was not worth a lawsuit.
Seems to me that both parties are acting like jerks: a restaurant owner who
won't accomodate a single customer, and a customer who is litigation-happy.

On Feb 25, 4:13*am, Goomba <Goomb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-la...6087649.column
>
> latimes.com
> Diabetic's discrimination lawsuit against restaurant is hard to swallow
> A Studio City sushi restaurant is taken to court by an all-you-can-eat
> customer.

> David Martin was in the mood for raw fish, and he liked the deal offered
> by a Studio City sushi restaurant: all you can eat for $28.
>
> He took a seat at the counter and started ordering. But it turned out
> that Martin didn't really want sushi, which includes rice; he wanted
> all-you-can-eat sashimi, which is just fish. He began picking the
> seafood off the top and leaving the rice.
>
> Restaurant owner Jay Oh told Martin that if he wanted the
> all-you-can-eat price, he'd have to eat the rice too and not just fill
> up on fish. Martin replied that he has diabetes and that he can't eat rice.

This would be the equivalent of going to an "AYCE" spaghetti and
meatballs place and eating only the meatballs while sending the plate-
fulls of spaghetti to the trash when ordering another serving. His
lawsuit is pure nonsense and will be seen as such by the court.

Sashimi is a specific food. Sushi is also a specific food as shown by
others posts already. As with my example above, if one wants a meal of
meatballs or a meal of just sashimi, one should go where those items
are available for serving and order them. If one goes to a restaurant
that is serving sushi, and eats only sashimi, than one is not eating
what is offered, but trying to substitute their wishes for what the
offer is.

His diabetes really has nothing to do with the issue. If one is
allergic to shellfish, one does not go to an AYCE surf and turf and
say; "I'll just have plate after plate of steak. I don't want the
shellfish because I'm allergic to them. It would be a blatant
disregard of the offer in an attempt to substitute something that was
not offered.

If one can't eat rice, then logic and common sense should tell them to
not go to a place offering all you can eat RICE and fish. To do so
would be plain stupid.

If a restaurant were to offer "All you can eat steak and wine with the
meal", then one can't go there and say; "I'm a vegetarian, I don't eat
meat, but I'll drink wine all evening for the price of your offer".
Rightfully, it wouldn't work anywhere. This is nothing more than
another version of that example.

"Janet" wrote:
>
>Seems to me that both parties are acting like jerks: a restaurant owner who
>won't accomodate a single customer, and a customer who is litigation-happy.

What nonsense. You were obviously raised with no ethics/morals.

A restaurant owner is not required to accomodate that kind
piggish/*THIEVING* behavior... anyone who can't eat rice needs to
order food other than a dish that is essentially rice (shoulda
patronized an all you can eat vienna sausage buffet). The patron is
obviously a thief and a douchebag. What this thieving douchebag did
was tantamount to patronizing an all you can eat lobster bisque, and
bowl after bowl picking out whatever tidbits of lobster and telling
the proprietor he can either flush the rest or shove it. This
thieving douchebag patron needs to be punished the same as any common
thief... a big fat fine and a long stretch in the slammer. But it's
CA, ALL uneducated slimeballs.

In article <[email protected]>, Brooklyn1
says...
>
> "Janet" wrote:
> >
> >Seems to me that both parties are acting like jerks: a restaurant owner who
> >won't accomodate a single customer, and a customer who is litigation-happy.
>
> What nonsense. You were obviously raised with no ethics/morals.
>
> A restaurant owner is not required to accomodate that kind
> piggish/*THIEVING* behavior... anyone who can't eat rice needs to
> order food other than a dish that is essentially rice (shoulda
> patronized an all you can eat vienna sausage buffet). The patron is
> obviously a thief and a douchebag. What this thieving douchebag did
> was tantamount to patronizing an all you can eat lobster bisque, and
> bowl after bowl picking out whatever tidbits of lobster and telling
> the proprietor he can either flush the rest or shove it. This
> thieving douchebag patron needs to be punished the same as any common
> thief... a big fat fine and a long stretch in the slammer. But it's
> CA, ALL uneducated slimeballs.

Maybe the owner should note to the judge, the English translation of the
word Sushi. From what I am told by my daughter who has lived "over
there". Sushi literally means, "Vinegar RICE"! Correct me if I am wrong,
but I don't think I am.

Goomba quoted:
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fi-la...6087649.column
>
> latimes.com
> Diabetic's discrimination lawsuit against restaurant is hard to swallow
> A Studio City sushi restaurant is taken to court by an all-you-can-eat
> customer.
> ...
> If it's Oh's policy that you eat everything you're served if you want
> the all-you-can-eat price, then that's the policy. If you don't like it,
> don't go there again. Or pay the a la carte price and eat whatever you
> want. Or order the sashimi for goodness' sake and don't make such a fuss.

I've been to several sushi buffet places including Todai which is a
small chain that competes with Oh. There's even a Todai here in the
Chicago burbs that I have been to.

> Cohen, Martin's attorney, said his client "has frequented numerous sushi
> bars and not once has he ever been demanded to eat rice upon explaining
> that he is diabetic." So go back to those places.

Good luck with that, though. Name one such place. Seriously. Without
exception any buffet place I've ever been to has had a sign that says
something like "There is an extra charge for not eating the sushi rice".
If he wants to name such a place that doesn't have that sign I want to
see it.

> The only thing Martin has proved with his lawsuit is that he has
> problems accepting other people's quite reasonable rules. The fact that
> he offered to drop his suit in return for a payout of $6,000 isn't
> exactly the hallmark of a civil rights champion.

I also want to set up a bet with him that I can bother to notice my
surroundings unlike him and so I can show him a photograph of the
sign. I'll get his $6000 back that way and enjoy a bunch of sushi on
his dime! Who knows, maybe he's as gullible as the story makes him
seem.

> Perhaps I can help. In my experience, there's no such thing as a
> diabetic-friendly or not-friendly business.
>
> Just friendly and not-friendly diabetics.

This also applies to other dietary restrictions. I'm wheat intolerant.
I never expect anyone to go out of their way to accomidate me on that.
When at a restaurant I scan the menu, mentally erase anything that
probably has wheat in it, then I around from the remaining items. I
never fail to find food I can digest without symptoms at restaurants. I
have been to places where my choices were chicken caesar salad no
croutons or house salad no croutons but usually they have at least one
thing I can eat. Good thing I love genuine Buffalo style chickne wings
never breaded never dedged ...

On 2/25/2011 3:17 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
> In article<[email protected] >, Brooklyn1
> says...
>>
>> "Janet" wrote:
>>>
>>> Seems to me that both parties are acting like jerks: a restaurant owner who
>>> won't accomodate a single customer, and a customer who is litigation-happy.
>>
>> What nonsense. You were obviously raised with no ethics/morals.
>>
>> A restaurant owner is not required to accomodate that kind
>> piggish/*THIEVING* behavior... anyone who can't eat rice needs to
>> order food other than a dish that is essentially rice (shoulda
>> patronized an all you can eat vienna sausage buffet). The patron is
>> obviously a thief and a douchebag. What this thieving douchebag did
>> was tantamount to patronizing an all you can eat lobster bisque, and
>> bowl after bowl picking out whatever tidbits of lobster and telling
>> the proprietor he can either flush the rest or shove it. This
>> thieving douchebag patron needs to be punished the same as any common
>> thief... a big fat fine and a long stretch in the slammer. But it's
>> CA, ALL uneducated slimeballs.
>
> Maybe the owner should note to the judge, the English translation of the
> word Sushi. From what I am told by my daughter who has lived "over
> there". Sushi literally means, "Vinegar RICE"! Correct me if I am wrong,
> but I don't think I am.

I think the dictionary regarded as the ultimate standard, the Oxford
English Dictionary, would agree with you. It gives "A Japanese dish
consisting of small balls of cold boiled rice flavoured with vinegar and
commonly garnished with slices of fish or cooked egg. Also attrib. Hence
sushiya (suija), in Japan, a shop which serves sushi."


--


James Silverton, Potomac

"Not": obvious change in "Reply To"

On 2/25/2011 3:17 PM, I_am_Tosk wrote:
> In article<[email protected] >, Brooklyn1
> says...
>>
>> "Janet" wrote:
>>>
>>> Seems to me that both parties are acting like jerks: a restaurant owner who
>>> won't accomodate a single customer, and a customer who is litigation-happy.
>>
>> What nonsense. You were obviously raised with no ethics/morals.
>>
>> A restaurant owner is not required to accomodate that kind
>> piggish/*THIEVING* behavior... anyone who can't eat rice needs to
>> order food other than a dish that is essentially rice (shoulda
>> patronized an all you can eat vienna sausage buffet). The patron is
>> obviously a thief and a douchebag. What this thieving douchebag did
>> was tantamount to patronizing an all you can eat lobster bisque, and
>> bowl after bowl picking out whatever tidbits of lobster and telling
>> the proprietor he can either flush the rest or shove it. This
>> thieving douchebag patron needs to be punished the same as any common
>> thief... a big fat fine and a long stretch in the slammer. But it's
>> CA, ALL uneducated slimeballs.
>
> Maybe the owner should note to the judge, the English translation of the
> word Sushi. From what I am told by my daughter who has lived "over
> there". Sushi literally means, "Vinegar RICE"! Correct me if I am wrong,
> but I don't think I am.

I have been to Japan on numerous occasions and the meaning you noted is
correct. Also I have never been in a place offering an all you can eat
sushi meal that didn't explicitly note that you must eat everything you
order.

Gorio wrote:
>
> Another war over syntax.
>
> I was always taught that suchi was the actual name for the rice cooked
> perfectly and seasoned perfectly wiht rice vinegar. Sichi IS the rice,
> oft combined with sashimi or even vegetation.
>
> I'm no expert but I hope this A-hole blows a bunch of money on lawyers
> for nothing and a counter suite brings great rewards for the restaurant
> owner. This frivolous crap has to stop.

Presumably the restaurant will benefit from the publicity, certainly
from those who know that sushi is the rice.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:58:51 -0500, George <[email protected]>
wrote:

> How horrible, a restaurant owner defines what will be served and the
> terms.

The courts packed, so I'm surprise that complaint wasn't 86'd as a
frivolous lawsuit immediately.

--

Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

On 2/25/2011 5:24 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> I have to admit that the two Japanese buffets around here that I like
> each have notices saying approximately "We do not serve sashimi in the
> buffet. Anyone not eating the rice will incur an extra charge." This
> seems entirely reasonable to me. It is unfortunate that someone may have
> to avoid a sushi buffet because of this policy but that is hardly a
> great imposition or a discrimination. I don't think I want to know the
> litigious Mr. Martin.
>

I've never seen a sign like that at the restaurants where I'll eat sushi
- thank God! That's rather insulting.

OTOH, I like mushrooms but my doc has told me to stay away from
foods that will give me a fat ass so when I get the craving for
mushrooms, I'll always head down to the nearest all you can eat pizza
buffet and dig in, or rather dig in and pick out then throw the pizza
away. There's nothing quite as tasty as mushroom baked on a bed of
cheese and tomato sauce. Yummy!

On 2/25/2011 5:59 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 2/25/2011 5:24 AM, James Silverton wrote:
>> I have to admit that the two Japanese buffets around here that I like
>> each have notices saying approximately "We do not serve sashimi in the
>> buffet. Anyone not eating the rice will incur an extra charge." This
>> seems entirely reasonable to me. It is unfortunate that someone may have
>> to avoid a sushi buffet because of this policy but that is hardly a
>> great imposition or a discrimination. I don't think I want to know the
>> litigious Mr. Martin.
>>
>
> I've never seen a sign like that at the restaurants where I'll eat sushi
> - thank God! That's rather insulting.
>
> OTOH, I like mushrooms but my doc has told me to stay away from
> foods that will give me a fat ass so when I get the craving for
> mushrooms, I'll always head down to the nearest all you can eat pizza
> buffet and dig in, or rather dig in and pick out then throw the pizza
> away. There's nothing quite as tasty as mushroom baked on a bed of
> cheese and tomato sauce. Yummy!

There's a difference between a pig removing the topping at an
all-you-can eat buffet and someone eating at a sushi bar. At the latter,
the customer could choose to eat only the topping tho' why they should
since it would be rather foolish and wasteful because they could order
sashimi.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

"Not": obvious change in "Reply To"

On 2011-02-25, Doug Freyburger <[email protected]> wrote:

> I've been to several sushi buffet places including Todai which is a
> small chain that competes with Oh. There's even a Todai here in the
> Chicago burbs that I have been to.

That's the one I was trying to remember. They had one in Pleasanton,
on the Western edge of the SFBA. Apparently, it died a little over a
year ago. No great loss. It sucked!

There was a new one called Crazy Buffet, that opened just before I
moved, but never tried it.

nb

In article <ik9cuf$5p0$[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 2/25/2011 5:59 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> > On 2/25/2011 5:24 AM, James Silverton wrote:
> >> I have to admit that the two Japanese buffets around here that I like
> >> each have notices saying approximately "We do not serve sashimi in the
> >> buffet. Anyone not eating the rice will incur an extra charge." This
> >> seems entirely reasonable to me. It is unfortunate that someone may have
> >> to avoid a sushi buffet because of this policy but that is hardly a
> >> great imposition or a discrimination. I don't think I want to know the
> >> litigious Mr. Martin.
> >>
> >
> > I've never seen a sign like that at the restaurants where I'll eat sushi
> > - thank God! That's rather insulting.
> >
> > OTOH, I like mushrooms but my doc has told me to stay away from
> > foods that will give me a fat ass so when I get the craving for
> > mushrooms, I'll always head down to the nearest all you can eat pizza
> > buffet and dig in, or rather dig in and pick out then throw the pizza
> > away. There's nothing quite as tasty as mushroom baked on a bed of
> > cheese and tomato sauce. Yummy!
>
> There's a difference between a pig removing the topping at an
> all-you-can eat buffet and someone eating at a sushi bar. At the latter,
> the customer could choose to eat only the topping tho' why they should
> since it would be rather foolish and wasteful because they could order
> sashimi.

Part of the problem I would imagine is save a few heavy population
centers on the opposite coasts, most folks in the US probably don't know
the difference. I have heard the word Sushi all my life, but only
recently heard the distinction of sashimi..

George wrote:

<snip brooklyn's vicious crap>

> I have been to Japan on numerous occasions and the meaning you noted
> is correct. Also I have never been in a place offering an all you can
> eat sushi meal that didn't explicitly note that you must eat
> everything you order.

Well, I've never patronized a restaurant offering an "all you can eat" deal
of any kind so I have no idea what the norm is, but I completely agree that
if it explicitly said somewhere that you had to eat everything you ordered,
that the patron's already shaky case hasn't a leg to stand on. Although the
restauranteur could have handled it better, he does not deserve to be sued,
even if his menu wasn't explicit.

In article <[email protected]>,
Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:

> "Janet" wrote:
> >
> >Seems to me that both parties are acting like jerks: a restaurant owner who
> >won't accomodate a single customer, and a customer who is litigation-happy.
>
> What nonsense. You were obviously raised with no ethics/morals.
>
> A restaurant owner is not required to accomodate that kind
> piggish/*THIEVING* behavior... anyone who can't eat rice needs to
> order food other than a dish that is essentially rice (shoulda
> patronized an all you can eat vienna sausage buffet). The patron is
> obviously a thief and a douchebag. What this thieving douchebag did
> was tantamount to patronizing an all you can eat lobster bisque, and
> bowl after bowl picking out whatever tidbits of lobster and telling
> the proprietor he can either flush the rest or shove it. This
> thieving douchebag patron needs to be punished the same as any common
> thief... a big fat fine and a long stretch in the slammer. But it's
> CA, ALL uneducated slimeballs.

I concur...

If I want to eat at a buffet, I will eat what is there and not go back
for seconds until my plate is clean. That is only fair to the
proprietors.

But I don't eat like a pig either. Yeesh!
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."
--Robert Heinlien