Posted May 17, 2012
'Tis no man. 'Tis a remorseless eatin' machine!
But enough about Homer Simpson......this story is actually about a man who got kicked out of a buffet for eating 12 pieces of fish during an all-you-can-eat fish fry buffet. Supposedly they gave him 8 more pieces to go as he left, citing that they were low on fish and wanted to be able to feed the other cutomers.....also(FWIW) the man has has trouble(unspecified) with the establishment before(Take of that what you will.).
350 lb man kicked out of All-you-can-eat buffet for eating too much food
So what do you guys think? Many who commented already brought up the whole "technically the restaurant didn't fulfill it's promise on the 'all-you-can-eat' bit", so I already "get" that and agree with it, but what about the other aspects of it:
Is the restaurant in the "moral right" here(They also let him run up a tab and have put up with his behavior, whatever it was, in the past.) or the man protesting(He DID pay for all-you-can-eat.....oh and I forgot to mention he's also protesting this....he also called the police when it happened.)?
Should businesses be made to put disclaimers up for such events(Stating "all you can eat, within reasonable exception", etc.), or should they just call such things buffets from now on(and skip the all-you-can-eat part) to avoid such trouble?
Any other thoughts?
But enough about Homer Simpson......this story is actually about a man who got kicked out of a buffet for eating 12 pieces of fish during an all-you-can-eat fish fry buffet. Supposedly they gave him 8 more pieces to go as he left, citing that they were low on fish and wanted to be able to feed the other cutomers.....also(FWIW) the man has has trouble(unspecified) with the establishment before(Take of that what you will.).
350 lb man kicked out of All-you-can-eat buffet for eating too much food
So what do you guys think? Many who commented already brought up the whole "technically the restaurant didn't fulfill it's promise on the 'all-you-can-eat' bit", so I already "get" that and agree with it, but what about the other aspects of it:
Is the restaurant in the "moral right" here(They also let him run up a tab and have put up with his behavior, whatever it was, in the past.) or the man protesting(He DID pay for all-you-can-eat.....oh and I forgot to mention he's also protesting this....he also called the police when it happened.)?
Should businesses be made to put disclaimers up for such events(Stating "all you can eat, within reasonable exception", etc.), or should they just call such things buffets from now on(and skip the all-you-can-eat part) to avoid such trouble?
Any other thoughts?