Blogger's demand for free meals sparks outrage online
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
Remember the last time some woman tried to start an association for bloggers?
Anyway they seem to stand by their director's version of the story. ("The candid remarks and unacceptable responses from the said blogger were certainly uncalled for. We were not impressed by his behaviour, action and mannerism.")
I guess... perhaps for me, what was more 'distasteful' is that instead of clarifying the facts, stating the sequence of events and leaving the reader to come to his own conclusion (which everyone, including me, has already more or less concluded: that the blogger is a cheapo who took unscrupulous advantage to squeeze what he could out of an invitation of goodwill), they included judgement of the blogger and a personal attack on him.
That's not very .. professional of a company I guess. Afterall, they DID invite him, but what they didn't do is, at the moment he said he has 4 guests, they should clarify with him at the onset that the invitation was for 2. This would have prevented the misunderstanding from occurring at all.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
And you are back too after god-knows-how-long.
gonna disappear when work starts again. x(
-
Originally posted by ShrodingersCat:
I guess... perhaps for me, what was more 'distasteful' is that instead of clarifying the facts, stating the sequence of events and leaving the reader to come to his own conclusion (which everyone, including me, has already more or less concluded: that the blogger is a cheapo who took unscrupulous advantage to squeeze what he could out of an invitation of goodwill), they included judgement of the blogger and a personal attack on him.
That's not very .. professional of a company I guess. Afterall, they DID invite him, but what they didn't do is, at the moment he said he has 4 guests, they should clarify with him at the onset that the invitation was for 2. This would have prevented the misunderstanding from occurring at all.
True.
He shouldn't have made the assumption that he wouldn't have to pay for their share just because the PR lady didn't acknowledge it. Actually, there was no mention of whether she was present. He didn't help matters by showing up with only 2 in his party. The other 2 arrived more than 30 minutes later.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
True.
He shouldn't have made the assumption that he wouldn't have to pay for their share just because the PR lady didn't acknowledge it. Actually, there was no mention of whether she was present. He didn't help matters by showing up with only 2 in his party. The other 2 arrived more than 30 minutes later.
Agree. that's where the he's an unscrupulous cheapo part comes in! Kekekek....
-
Originally posted by ShrodingersCat:
Agree. that's where the he's an unscrupulous cheapo part comes in! Kekekek....
Obvious with intention to deceive.
-
Well, I've read the ST article and it appears to have filled in the gaps, although some of the things that the Mr Valentine said didn't appear.
-
Originally posted by ditzy:
I hope the restaurant can close down, then a particular someone will not get his fix of foie gras anymore.
blardy hell...................... -
Originally posted by TehJarVu:
blardy hell......................You never noticed? Every joo chiat restaurant you visited gets into trouble one.
-
Originally posted by ditzy:
You never noticed? Every joo chiat restaurant you visited gets into trouble one.
He went to Obolo too?!
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
He went to Obolo too?!
I won't be surprised if the whole street was patronised.
-
Originally posted by ShrodingersCat:
I guess... perhaps for me, what was more 'distasteful' is that instead of clarifying the facts, stating the sequence of events and leaving the reader to come to his own conclusion (which everyone, including me, has already more or less concluded: that the blogger is a cheapo who took unscrupulous advantage to squeeze what he could out of an invitation of goodwill), they included judgement of the blogger and a personal attack on him.
That's not very .. professional of a company I guess. Afterall, they DID invite him, but what they didn't do is, at the moment he said he has 4 guests, they should clarify with him at the onset that the invitation was for 2. This would have prevented the misunderstanding from occurring at all.
Schedule of events
According to the screenshot posted by Brad, the lunch invitation on Jun 2 only invites him alone.
On Jun 9, Brad replied he is busy but will get back with a date.
On Aug 20, Brad said he will be coming for brunch tasting on sunday (which is Aug 22 ). The reply is more than 6 weeks.
On Aug 21, Melanie emailed and asked whether Brad is bringing a guest. (note the word 'a' instead of 'any')
On the same day, Brad replied he is bringing 3 guests.
Some comments
1. Brad said "In the invite, i was told to bring a guest." Being told to bring a guest is not the same as being asked whether he is bringing a guest. There is nowhere stating you are told to bring a guest.
2. Brad tried to dispute this:
"Story: I had informed the restaurant that I was a food blogger, therefore assuming that the bill for all 4 of us would be waived.
Fact: In truth, I had asked for no waiver. I paid for my other two companions. The bill for 2, inclusive of sparkling wine, came to $260. Out of goodwill, they did decide to waive the wine and I eventually paid $160 for 2"
But you went on to say "It was an oversight to assume to that no acknowledgement from Melanie about my 3 accompanying guests would mean that their meals would be on the house too"
So you did assume the bill for all 4 would be waived.
3. Brad said: "I was not expected to be billed for and then “waived” off from what was disguised as a “food tasting session"
Brad also said "When I dine out, I pay for my food like any regular consumer. When I am invited for food tasting sessions, it is a mutual understanding between the inviter and myself, that I would be attending as the identity of media for a possible food review"
To Brad:
Why did you not expected to be billed when you said you pay for your food when you dine out? If they waived it off, shouldn't you be happy?
If you said you are attending as the identity of media, you think too highly of yourself. Is that why you throw your card at the counter?
-
Originally posted by SnowFlag:
Schedule of events
According to the screenshot posted by Brad, the lunch invitation on Jun 2 only invites him alone.
On Jun 9, Brad replied he is busy but will get back with a date.
On Aug 20, Brad said he will be coming for brunch tasting on sunday (which is Aug 22 ). The reply is more than 6 weeks.
On Aug 21, Melanie emailed and asked whether Brad is bringing a guest. (note the word 'a' instead of 'any')
On the same day, Brad replied he is bringing 3 guests.
Some comments
1. Brad said "In the invite, i was told to bring a guest." Being told to bring a guest is not the same as being asked whether he is bringing a guest. There is nowhere stating you are told to bring a guest.
2. Brad tried to dispute this:
"Story: I had informed the restaurant that I was a food blogger, therefore assuming that the bill for all 4 of us would be waived.
Fact: In truth, I had asked for no waiver. I paid for my other two companions. The bill for 2, inclusive of sparkling wine, came to $260. Out of goodwill, they did decide to waive the wine and I eventually paid $160 for 2"
But you went on to say "It was an oversight to assume to that no acknowledgement from Melanie about my 3 accompanying guests would mean that their meals would be on the house too"
So you did assume the bill for all 4 of us would be waived.
3. Brad said: "I was not expected to be billed for and then “waived” off from what was disguised as a “food tasting session"
Brad also said "When I dine out, I pay for my food like any regular consumer. When I am invited for food tasting sessions, it is a mutual understanding between the inviter and myself, that I would be attending as the identity of media for a possible food review"
To Brad:
Why did you not expected to be billed when you said you pay for your food when you dine out? If they waived it off, shouldn't you be happy?
If you said you are attending as the identity of media, you think too highly of yourself. Is that why you throw your card at the counter?
+1
I like ur point 1 and 2... Especially point 2...
U shld go put this up somewhere...
-
Originally posted by ^Acid^ aka s|aO^eH~:
+1I like ur point 1 and 2... Especially point 2...
U shld go put this up somewhere...
Thanks. But I rather focus on other things than to keep reiterating... -
-
Originally posted by ^Acid^ aka s|aO^eH~:
That's funny
-
After reading all the various accounts from Life, and Newpaper, it is concluded that Brad is guilty.
-
saw e tnp article..
but wat's strange is e PR lady.
-
My verdict - Both Wrong. If court case, court wins.... Lawyer fees for both parties' prosecutors...
Restaurant: Wants free publicity.... Hide details that it had actually invited the blogger and a friend to eat.... and make the report seems as though the blogger went in to eat without invitation as a walk-in customer... and then insists on not paying for the meal..... Makes itself seen as a victim.
Blogger: Wanted to eat free with his friends... Notice they only invited 2 guests and he asked for 4.. without confirmation... a group of 4 went in to eat. When asked to pay, throws credit card. -
Someone posted his home address in yahoo's report, so if anyone wants to send him a "complimentary" brunch....
-
Originally posted by ditzy:
Someone posted his home address in yahoo's report, so if anyone wants to send him a "complimentary" brunch....
CSI sexposed~~~ -
Originally posted by ditzy:
Someone posted his home address in yahoo's report, so if anyone wants to send him a "complimentary" brunch....
That's way too much.
The news got out only because the restaurant managers told other food bloggers an exaggerated version. For instance, the bill was only $200+, not $435. Unscrupulous.
-
Originally posted by Kuali Baba:
That's way too much.
The news got out only because the restaurant managers told other food bloggers an exaggerated version. For instance, the bill was only $200+, not $435. Unscrupulous.
Joo chiat is really famed for its notoriety hor?
-
Originally posted by ditzy:
Joo chiat is really famed for its notoriety hor?
well I just hope this brad lau dun go to "Everything with Fries">______>
-
Originally posted by ^Acid^ aka s|aO^eH~:
well I just hope this brad lau dun go to "Everything with Fries">______>
I'll beat him to it, I will bring my canon s90, and tell them i represent ieatishoo....
-
wah wrong thread