Atkins nitwits get booted from buffet

shemp said:
I think it depends on what else they ate. If ALL they were eating was roast beef, and if the slices were small, then maybe they weren't gluttons.
Click to expand...

I have never seen a small slice of roast beef in the US.
 
ok, so if they ate a dozen slices of roast beef and if each slice weighed 2 ozs. they only ate a pound and a half of meat.

yeah, that's pretty gross. but how many of us haven't ordered a monster steak once in our lives (and ate other high calorie stuff with it)
 
Of course the Simpson episode "New Kid on the Block" covers this territory. Homer is cut off from the seafood buffet at The Frying Dutchman after eating all the food. He sues.
 
I used to work with someone from Utah who told me that there was a place called "Chuck-a-rama".

I never believed her, until one day I was driving through St. George on my way to Zion, and there it was by the freeway.

Call me another skeptic converted by the evidence.
 
This is an example of why the Atkins diet doesn't always work. Sometimes, people use it as an excuse to stuff themselves with all of the beef, pork, sausage, eggs and cheese. There's no way to lose weight this way.
 
Cynical said:
This is an example of why the Atkins diet doesn't always work. Sometimes, people use it as an excuse to stuff themselves with all of the beef, pork, sausage, eggs and cheese. There's no way to lose weight this way.
Click to expand...

Oh, but that's the beautiful irony of the story. These clowns, apparently on the Atkins "diet," have more than replaced the calories they didn't get from carbs.

I wouldn't be surprised if Atkins allows for replacing calories from carbs with calories from meat (claim is that meat calories are better), but 12 servings is a little beyond "replacing" the calories.

Basically, if they are out eating 12 servings of roast beef in one sitting, I'm not surprised that they feel a need to diet.
 
hgc said:
Of course the Simpson episode "New Kid on the Block" covers this territory. Homer is cut off from the seafood buffet at The Frying Dutchman after eating all the food. He sues.
Click to expand...
"That's not a mad, 'tis a hideous eating machine!"
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:


Not quite the same though is it?

He didn't refuse them service (as evidenced by the fact they still had to pay), it is basically a disagreement over whether it is a limited offer (although on a help yourself basis) and an unlimited offer (eat as much as you can/want). If it is the former, then the restaurant is correct.

If the latter, then I don't think the "but we won't have anything left for other customers" defence works - you have entered into a contract and the impact it will have on the restaurants other cuctomers is the restaurants problem, not the customers.
Click to expand...

It all depends; if the buffet does not have any restrictions or limits stated before someone pays for it then the owner could throw them out. However if there are no restrictions and the owner throws them out because they ate too much (in his opinion), then throwing them out will be a breach of contract. It would be kind of like you ordering a big mac at McDonald's and after you pay they tell you the are refusing you service and kicking you out while keeping your money.
 
Since nobody is signing anything prior to eating, the 'contract' in this case should be held to the standard of the imaginary
'reasonable person'...going to either extreme (i.e. charging people for every trip as a 'new' buffet, or allowing someone to sit there for hours and gorge and disgorge themselves of 100 dollars worth of beef, shrimp, etc.) would not be part of any reasonable person's contract.

I have seen buffets post signs that narrow the definition, particularly on those who try to 'carry out' more food in a bulging container than the price could possibly cover.

But hey, between wondering how much weight you can lose with your 13th slice of roast, and watching a few TV exposes on bacteria levels under the sneeze guards, I'm not likely to be in sympathy with those two anyway.

Paul
 
pgwenthold said:


I think it is. At some point, they are cutting off service. I would interpret "We reserve the right to refuse service" to mean "We reserve the right to refuse any more service"

They can cut off the service any time they want, basically. And yes, the customer would still be responsible to pay for what they received.
Click to expand...

So you think it would be perfectly reasonable to promote a restaurant using a slogan like "eat as much as you want for $10" then throw people out if they eat more than one plateful? After all they have the right to refuse any more service.
 
Jaggy Bunnet said:


So you think it would be perfectly reasonable to promote a restaurant using a slogan like "eat as much as you want for $10" then throw people out if they eat more than one plateful? After all they have the right to refuse any more service.
Click to expand...

The libertarian in me says, yeah, of course.

Of course, a business that treats its customers in this way will not have a lot coming back so they do so at their own risk.

OTOH, I don't think a restaurant who cuts off a customer after 12 helpings of roast beef is going to lose a lot of clientele, but hey, it's their decision to make.
 
Since when is beef and pork NO-carb? It's LOADED with carbs - great greasy handfuls of the stuff.

Atkins diet be buggered! That was just an obvious excuse to pig out.

(I did it! A pun!)
 
CFLarsen said:
They ate so much that there wasn't enough for other people. After 11 slices...? That's not "all you can eat", that's having a serious gluttony-problem!!
Click to expand...

From the roast-beef slicing buffets I've been to, 11 slices is not that much. It's maybe as much as a 12 oz. (pre-cooked weight) steak.
 
I was amazed at the technology possessed by the dormitory cafeterias where I used to eat. They could make a peanut butter sandwich with a monolayer of peanut butter. Breaded veal cutlets with air pockets underneath the breading. The Chuck-a-rama sounds like the wurst restaurant in town, their buffet seems like a bad dill, no matter how you slice it.
 
Zep said:
Since when is beef and pork NO-carb? It's LOADED with carbs - great greasy handfuls of the stuff.
Click to expand...

huh? you're completely wrong on this point. Meat is fat and protein with traces of carbohydrate. Unless for instance you bread it or serve it with a high carb sauce.
 
HarryKeogh said:

huh? you're completely wrong on this point. Meat is fat and protein with traces of carbohydrate. Unless for instance you bread it or serve it with a high carb sauce.
Click to expand...
Forgive me for being skeptical, but aren't fats, starches, and sugars just some of the many variants of carbohydrates?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=carbohydrate

car·bo·hy·drate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kärb-hdrt)
n.

Any of a group of organic compounds that includes sugars, starches, celluloses, and gums and serves as a major energy source in the diet of animals. These compounds are produced by photosynthetic plants and contain only carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, usually in the ratio 1:2:1.
Click to expand...
 
Zep said:
Forgive me for being skeptical, but aren't fats, starches, and sugars just some of the many variants of carbohydrates?
Click to expand...

No.

Carbohydrates are sugars (simple and complex), chains of sugars (complex carbohydrates), and fiber (cellulose and other materials made of chains of sugar isomers that are not easily broken down by most enzymes).

Fats, although they are made from carbon and hydrogen, aren't carbohydrates. Go figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom