Thoyd Loki

Please! Hurtful and insulting? In this day and age? Is this because it wasn't said by a black man or against the background of a mind-numbingly monotonous beat? "Yo-yo nappy headed- hoes, make you my bitch, you be strippin' in shows. Yo-yo nappy headed hoes....[ad nauseum]." No one was insulted by this. This is power play pure and simple; played by two of biggest bigots of our time (and race pimps) Sharpton and Jackson. Can't get some innocent white Duke boys into a prison? Fry this shriveled old guy who showed a hair on his ass.

Eh, isn't that called a bribe? Not that I'd be against tipping you if you were arresting me...

Actually I think Inspector is flailing between the Intrinsic and the Subjective here. It has to be a set price that is written in stone (paper hopefully, I don't know what restaurant would have their menu on stone) or it is dueces wild anything goes and who knows what to do. Actually all it requires is an objective assessment, and a pretty easy one at that. Part of it is set, the menu item price. The restaurant leaves the rest to your judgement, and your choice. You can actually decide not to pay for part of the services you were rendered, or you can depending on a host of personal and professional criterea that is up to you. Wow, the damn bastards! Frankly, I like having the choice, and, as a regular at a certain establishment, I like to be able to set a standard for the service I want. PS. As a bartender, I'll want photos of all those here against tipping in case you ever come to my bar. I have a heirarchy of preferred customers. I believe you know your place on that heirarchy!

Granting that there is much more skill in being a chef than a waiter, can we stop denigrating jobs here? Every line of work has its own unique set of tasks, skills and challenges; the only thing I care about is whether one does their job well, or not. Is this some ol' boys club where you smoke cigars and sip congac, and inflate your ego by ripping jokes on the porter?

Inspector has always scared the hell out of me. His country would be like living in robot-land with Christian-like sex rules, except they'd be called Objectivist, but Jerry Falwell wouldn't care what you called them as long as you followed them. It is not some guessing game like you don't know whether to leave $2 or $13 on a $20 check. There are even websites so you can hone your tipping acumen to the penny! His is a strawman argument. Your example is entirely bogus. You are the only one that is guessing. It is a very coherent system, it is just one that is not a rationalistic construct that follows arbitrary rules. No, it is not entirely scripted for you, you may have to do some low level evaluations. Just because you don't want to think, but instead follow some dry regimen, doesn't mean the rest of us who enjoy the dining experience as is are guessing or paying people off not to poison them. BTW, your gentry-like evaluation of the people in the industry is insultingly low. Do you think you are paying extortion to a bunch of low-lifes? I think this really is your opinion, this is the 2nd thread you have made such insinuations on. And Inspector wants a contract he can bind them to?! Boy, this would be a fun table to sit at! Let the party begin! I don't know what kind of contractual bind he is referring to. Apparently he does not believe that value is a good incentive (another thing that would fill me with terror if Inspector was in control) maybe he can be able to flog them with a strap if he is not satisfied with their service? The people in the industry already have some of the best motivation there is for good job performance, i.e. tips. Inspector wants to remove it, and get better results. How is this supposed to work? Is there some re-education center where they can be taught a more 18th century servant outlook? Maybe we could brainwash them into thinking they be black folk and there ain't no such thing as a emancipation proclamation. I am not saying you are bound to tip at all. But it is simply pie in the sky thinking to think that your service would remain the same, and worse yet to think that it would improve with the removal of the present "system". And what is this "standard meal"? Is this going to be the new meal that is going to be served in every restaurant as the sole item with the one sole price as issued by The State Center for Pleasant Dining? What is this standard service? Is this the service you expect to see in every place you visit across the country each serving the same standard meal in 9.2 minutes with the same smile with eyebrows arched at 45 degrees and the girls clipping their heals once as they walk away (in skirts that appropriately go down to the ankles, of course).

First, if no one has it, I'd like to recommend the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I costs $70, but is a wealth of information and includes sections on each disorder for differential diagnosis which really helps to pinpoint what disorder is what. Second, Hark Readen and Howard Roark are not examples of mental disorders. Nothing in their behaviour points to any aspect of Aspergers that I could find. I find nothing in any of this that relates to Roark or Rearden in any way. Being socially awkward is not a clinical disorder, and I don't recall anything hinting at this in either of the two characters. And it is a simple fact that social interaction is easier and smoother - more spontaneous - with those that we can relate to who share something in common with us (be that values, interests, an outlook on life etc) than it is with those that are not like us, or the opposite to us, or our outright enemy. Roark and Rearden responded in totally normal ways to those that they valued that they shared something with. A person with Aspergers has difficulty in either situation, and is incapable in severe cases. They fail to match any of the clinical criterion I copied from the book. I am not a psychologist and I do not know if I have encountered one with this disorder (although some contenders come to mind) but I believe there is more to this disorder than the inability to make chit-chat at the company Christmas party.

I'm sorry, I made two assumptions here. 1. That you were reading the posts in this thread where countering views have been offered (I also assumed you had been reading my posts as well). Actually, I don't apologize for the first one. If you are responding to my posts, then you have read them (right?), I have a countering view, therefore you have heard otherwise. 2. That those you know didn't compose such a homogenous voice. Don't be bizarre. There was a whole paragraph following and supporting that word, "wrong". The context of which you replied to! Else why do you think the word "wrong" was not given its own paragraph? And on top of that my reply to your quote in my post (#41) was three paragraphs long! Having pursued electronics engineering in college, I can firmly say that I believe and know in the existence of atoms, even and especially electrons. Although I don't think Einstein ever came up. But, I am saying that more is necessary to "believe" in atoms than merely someone telling you so, as I believe I made clear. As for your court case examples. If eye witnesses is all the prosecution has got, then the man is probably getting off. And no, if the jury doesn't know that a man committed a crime, they should not convict him on faith or any other motive. But the burden of proving that the man is guilty rests on the accuser (the state). You seem to be unable to extricate yourself from the concretes on the story. Translation of the story would take away the magical ring, and the discovery of magical powers. Based on your non-knowledge of the stories, you claim there is nothing else but this. Take away the discovery of magical powers from Harry Potter for instance, and you would have the story of a gifted young boy using his own mind and judgement against those who wish to destroy him and an entrenched establishment that is blind to and unable to help him in fighting them. Man, there's a thousand stories right there and they could all be romantic realism. I don't care if it is 50 million other people or the entirety of the human race and several alien cultures besides. Since when does numeracy mean anything in proof? By this method Dagny Taggert should never have bought Readen Metal because nobody had tried it (or supported it) before. And I have a very good other source, try Dianne L. Durante's writing on the Potter series at ARI (Ayn Rand Institute). Really? Provide your proof. I will need your definition of art as a starter. This conversation concerns judging things of which one has no knowledge at all. I called it a "pretty safe bet", akin to a guess. You could say no more than: "I have been told story X has elements of magic in it." So I guess I have to take that away as knowledge as well. On the other hand, I could at least assume you caught a preview of one of these movies on television or in the theater, pretty hard to escape. Of course you would have to assume that the movies were a faithful enough adaptation from the books. And, since you work in a bookstore, you know these are categorized under Fantasy. When I consider all of this context, I consider it a safe bet that you know at least this much. I know this was your reply to Bold Standard, but I can't help but say that I would much rather bring in Harry Potter or LOTR to a philosophical conversation than Nausea! And of what use if Satre anyway?

There are certainly a lot more games avaliable for it nowadays. I saw the lastest World of Warcraft on their site, and Quake 4, of course my all time favorite Unreal Tournament is there. No doubt if you must play the latest video game now, Windows will undoubtedly have it first. I suspect as Macs get more popular, releases will pretty much parallel each other, but I'm not so much the video game hound I used to be. Graphics cards. The iMac line has from the ATI Radeon X1600 128 MB to the Nvidia GeForce 7600 GT 256 MB cards. The Mac Pro, which, if you have the money can be ordered with such configuations as to make it one hell of a beast, has a Nvidia Quadro FX 4500 512 MB. The Pro can have the sickest configuarion. 2 3GHz Dual core Intel Xeons 16GB Ram 667MHz DDR2 4 filled hard drive bays each 750 GB serial ATA's 2 30" Apple Cinema HD displays 30" 2 16X SuperDrives (CD/ DVD etc) I slapped a bunch of minor stuff on there as well for a grand total of $17,825! Minus taxes, of course. You can get a real good system for $1500 and up. Of course, if you are not into gaming, the price starts at $999. Someone mentioned getting used to a new OS. The Mac OS operates in many ways like Windows, I had no problem on the switch over. If you have used both Windows and Linux (or any UNIX system) the change over is even easier. Usually the most intuitive, easy way you can think to do something is the way that it is done in a Mac. Drag and drop is the most common task on Mac even between programs because that is the way it is designed.

Actually, you have "heard" otherwise as well. You simply choose what to hear based on a preconceived notion still without examination of any real evidence. Wrong. It is not a safe bet. If twenty thousand scientists came to me and told me there were little things called atoms that make up the world we perceive, I would not consider that knowledge. Much in the same way that if twenty thousand scientists came to me and said man's activities are causing the Earth to warm, I would not consider that knowledge either. Except to say that twenty thousand men with pieces of paper from universities said such and such to me. I would need some data, something to examine to relate to my other knowledge. Someone else's words mean nothing in themselves. If I just read even Ayn Rand's views on a subject and relate it to nothing I know, she has effectively said nothing at least in relation to my cognition-to what I can say is knowledge. The issue of atoms would take some reading and thinking in the field before I could say that this is knowledge, otherwise it is faith (faith in the words of others) or mere assumption. Likewise there is good way to judge a work of art as well - experience it. First hand, concrete observation of atoms is not likely for most people to come across probably ever - seeing a movie is well within one's grasp. They are not on the same epistemological level. We know, but you don't. I have no idea what the last sentence means. Are you saying that these stories could not be translated thematically or even in plot into real world stories? Could not LOTR be placed in WWII, and still have most of its structure in tact? Could not Harry Potter take place in college in the real world with much of the plot in tact? I say yes, it could, and you could keep the theme, a lot of the story structure, and the meaning of the story. What say you on this? And tell me how you came to your conclusion. Did someone else tell that this is false, and I am to take this on faith? Why don't I just talk to this other person since that is the person with the actual knowledge. Talking about your last sentence...would this exclude all fairy tales, Bugs Bunny, science fiction. How is it an assumption of a non-human life? And this common element is...? And it is essential why? Again you bring up things you know nothing about. Why don't I just talk to these other people whose opinions you pass to me without effort of exposing yourself to them? Wrong again. While I would say that you know there is magic in the movies is a pretty safe bet, that is all you know. You can safely assume that magic is present in these films. That is all. The rest is an evaluation by others. We can discuss those aspects, you cannot. How do you know that the magic predominates the movie to the point that its exclusion would leave the works empty? Someone told you so. This is the equivalent of: "I'm good because my mom said so." Or "The rich will not get into heaven because the Bible said." Both of these are on the same epistemological ground you are asking me to take seriously.

I second this recommendation. I'm suprised more people don't own these exquisite machines. There is no spyware/virus/etc/etc problems on them. It's hard to even find antivirus programs for it, and I've never seen a spyware program for it. They have the most consistent, reliable, integrated systems there are out there. All the programs that should relate to each other do. You get some real software bonuses that come with the system like Garageband (which is like ACID, but better I think) iTunes, iPhoto. Chuck in $160 more and you get complete web-authoring tools (that work like pie), DVD movie maker/video editor, Pages the desktop publisher and more. All of these programs are integrated; meaning that, for instance, the web authoring tool actually communicates to all forms of media that you have avaliable. The program seemlessly communicates with iPhoto, Garageband (for Podcasts and adding music to your files that you have made, or iTunes if you are using something already done), Movie HD 6 and quicktime are integrated for adding video to any web project. I slapped up a website in five minutes using this thing (account was already established!). This kind of integration is present throughout the system as a whole and in every part. Also, pianoman is right about the OS. The things that Vista is "introducing" have been a part of Apple for awhile. Except that Windows is going to be calling their Widgets Gadgets, and the desktop search engine is going to be located on the bottom left of the screen instead of the upper right as it is in Mac OSX. MS will never be able to acheive the cohesiveness and integration that Apple has acheived (unless they started putting out systems with their own hardware, and switched to a UNIX based system so they could spend some time on something other than virus protection and the like). Go to an Apple store or CompUSA and try one out! I don't agree about the mac-mini, however. For one, it doesn't come with a monitor (or any periphrials that I know of), another is that it is not their strongest system, it is their low end, and it is so small, it is in dnger of being misplaced or damaged. I would go with the iMac with the new Intel Dual Core (I don't even know if the older PowerPC is even avaliable anymore). They are really cool, everything is in the monitor, even the DVD goes into a slot on the side of the monitor. It is a real space saver. And they run flawlessly, I have never had so much as a hiccup in the year or more I've owned it. Also in the next couple of months you are going to be able to dual boot Windows and OSX on an Apple anyway, so you might as well get the best system, and then you can still use Windows if you need to - like for spreadsheets or something.

Well, there goes half of your argument. The magic was not in there to flex CGI muscle, but were there before. So this in this version of "reason", you get your facts second-hand (from, I suppose, the first-handers), toss out their evaluations, and arbitrarily assert your own without ever having come in contact with the subject matter at hand. You see the problem here is not that you think such and such about X, but that you know nothing about X, yet want to have an evaluation about X. Why would I compare Ludwig von Mises to anything at all in the art world? Or Satre for that matter. Does something have to be in the "intellectual lexicon" for it to be worthwhile to experience? Have you experienced these works? You weren't entirely clear because you go on to say, You doubt because you haven't exposed yourself to these works either? Or you doubt because you haven't yet made up your mind about them yet? Let me give you a sample of how this is done. I have never seen the movie Reservoir Dogs. Many people have suggested this movie to me-even some Objectivists over the years. The only thing that I know about the movie is that it is by Quentin Tarantino. I know that he made Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. I hated both of these movies emphatically. Based on that, my reason for not seeing it is that I do not like his other works, and do not want to spend the time to try out this one in the hopes that this one will not be a bucket of filth. But, knowing nothing about the movie specifically, I am held at this point. I can't talk about the plot - haven't seen it. Theme - haven't seen it. Can't talk about the message or sense of life - haven't seen it, camera angle, lighting, acting - haven't seen it. If I do want to talk about these things, I have to go and observe it with my own senses, think about what I have observed with my own mind, and then draw my own conclusions based on that. That is a process of reason. If you don't want to see the movies - I could not care less. But that certainly bars you from any evaluation of them.

You do realize that both Harry Potter and LOTR were books before they were movies, right? Because your posts give no hint of having this knowledge. I doubt that Tolkien, when he started LOTR in the 40's, thought to write a book that would take advantage of CGI in a future movie, a technology he couldn't have even conceived of at the time. This following quote of yours is what makes me think you may be unaware they were books first, then, later, movies. Or, are you saying that the makers of the movie tossed out all the story content to put in and make room for the CGI? And since when is it Objectivist methodology to form views on things based, not on observation of facts, but on the second-hand opinions of others?

Did you not read the quotes I provided? They make it very clear how that could be done. But, maybe you skimmed or it was over your head - the little jest at the end certainly hurdled over you. But, if you have already decided not to, I don't understand the reason for the whole thread. Are you trying to market to Objectivists - or what?

Well, why would you have to look for them in any kind of art then? Since there are so many heroes around, by this reasoning, we'd need no fictional heroes. So would we then, in order for there to be art, expose ourselves to scenes of depravity for aesthetics? Or would there simply be no art? Would the artist simply wither away in this Utopia? If this is the view. I realize it is not yours, but an interpretation of another's.

First, I don't make the whole "Objectivist", "student of Objectivism" distinction. I consider myself both. Second, if you are going to write fantasy, don't start pre-editing in your mind what you will and will not include based on your desire to achieve "realism". There is no surer way to clam up your subconscious than you standing in the way of what you want to do. If there is one field where you must do what you want to do, it is in fiction writing. Magic and the fantastic are merely tools or props on the stage of your work, there is nothing wrong with bending the metaphysical to highlight your theme. They are like the cowboy hat, saloon, and pistol in a Western; or an alien and a spaceship in science fiction. Third, let me recommend a most excellent book. It is The Golden Bough by Sir James George Frazer. In particular Chapter 4: Magic and Religion. Although there are numerous theoretical flaws, he does make a very interesting observation that magic is closer to the modern scientific mind than is religion. Since the book is part of the public domain, let me give three quotes without attributes. "The fatal flaw of magic lies not in its general assumption of a sequence of events determined by law, but in its total misconception of the nature of the particualr laws which govern that sequence." "It is therefore a truism, almost a tautology, to say that all magic is necessarily false and barren; for were it ever to become true and fruitful, it would not longer be magic but science." "Thus the analogy between the magical and the scientific conceptions of the world is close. In both of them the succession of events is assumed to be perfectly regular and certain, being determined by immutable laws, the operation of which can be forseen and calculated precisely; the elements of caprice, of chance, and of accident are banished from the course of nature." It is further discussed that religion is in opposition to these two in that it prefers a world where the laws are amendable by persuasion to a higher consciousness. In this treatment magic can serve as a stand-in for science in a fantasy work. If taken this way, then all of the virtues and even epistemology that you may desire to use are open for dramatization. PS> I already have a patent on this idea for my own work, so hands off!

Well, I was going to answer his questions for me, but I guess he jumped ship!

Am I following you correctly here? You started off this topic with a story about a guy that treated you badly who claimed to be an Objectivist. This gave you a bad impression of the philosophy. But now you find it disturbing that an Objectivist would not kill an innocent? Another question. How steeped are you in Kantian philosophy? These conversations are going to get pretty twisted since the 2 philosophies are diametrical opposites.

Oh yes, that makes much more sense. I'll have to say Kirk then. Although I still don't know whether the original question was about the actors or their roles. Ridiculous question if about the actors, I don't know them.

The thing about a philosophy is that it is a set of principles. Know the principles, and you know the philosophy. Know someone who claims to follow the philosophy and you may or may not learn anything about it at all. You may be witnessing someone who misunderstood everything he read, is inherently an ass, or read everything upsidedown. Like some of the other posters have asked: how do you define evil? I would state that all evil behavior is stupid. Knowingly committing an action one knows to be wrong, I do not see how it cannot be stupid. Stupid behavior (again undefined) would depend on the context. I've done some really stupid things, but I'd hardly consider them evil. I afford other people the same consideration unless I can see evidence to the contrary. Not sure I understand. Do you mean this simply as those whom you perceive to be of lesser intelligence than yourself? This would be a broader principle covering a broader context of behavior. If so, I could answer like this. (Again mistreat is one of those words that is left out there undefined.) I do not judge people on the basis of their intelligence, but on their morality, and character. I should say that I do not judge them on the basis of their intelligence unless a specific context calls for it. I do not penalize them, nor try to gain my own sense of self-worth by making it an issue. I consider the distinction important as it reveals two different motivations of behavior. However, in a better society, these two would be one and the same. Outside of the initiation of physical force "socially approved" behavior is meaningless to me. Approved - in what society? By what standard? Have you noticed that a lot of your questions come without context? I have some friends that I talk philosophy with. I have others that I have some beer with and play poker. Some others that I play music with. In a best friend I would say they are equal. Forrest Gump would be just as bored at Einstein's house as visa versa. Other cases, as I hinted above, depend on context. Sure, I was a pup myself once. Good times. Does this really help you to know our answers to this question? I refuse to answer this. They were a team, two halves of a human: Kirk - the passions, Spock - the intellect. No way, man you aren't trapping me in this.

This is ridiculous. All systems of philosophy are closed upon the death of the philosopher who created it. Kantianism is closed, Aristotianism, Platonism, Leibnitz, all closed. You can't take any of the philosophies, change them or add to them and then claim that your work now represents the dead philosopher's philosophy. The philosophy is what the author of it says it is and that is that. What is the philosophy of Plato? It is the philosophy that Plato wrote, it closed on his last utterance - anything said by anyone else thereafter does not change his philosophy, nor does it add to it, they being not Plato. Maybe this wouldn't have ever come up if Miss Rand had chosen Randianism for the name of her philosophy and not some object name. A case differing from Existentialism for instance that had no single author that coined it to stand for his particular philosophy. It being descriptive rather than possessive as most philosophers have their own name as the name of their philosophy. David Kelly is a moocher. He wants to expropriate the acheivements of another. He wants what has historically never happened. He wants to change the philosophy and still call it by Miss Rand's name because it has cash value. Peikoff has always been very up front about where he stands on this and has always followed what is, in fact, the truth about every philosopher. Just check out the introduction to OPAR.

I picked up a couple sarcastic type nudges here and there on this topic, but not from you. So if I gave the impression I was accusing you, I apologize for that. Personally, I don't care what a person is doing for a job, only how well they do it. I'm also starting to see that I probably approach this topic differently from most as I have intimate knowledge of the job (any job in that business for that matter), and I really know what I am looking at and what can be expected. I also probably have more than the usual amount of sympathy for the person in this job, and what a pain it can be to deal with a lot of jackasses. Actually, the case may be in a lot of instances something not your fault, nor the waiter's, but the crazy ass bastard sitting in the booth across from you. But, we are talking about services rendered. I too have a sliding scale based on my overall experience of the service. I just don't happen to have a penalization range for stuff I see as outside of that individual's ability to control; he will get a flat rate, and has, unfortunately missed out on anywhere from 18% to 50% tippage of my bill (actually 50% is reserved for the best waitresses with the best looks - if they have it, they use it to influence their tips, and I pay it). If I do see it as an issue a certain individual's incompetence, I am probably as severe or worse than most here. As that is the same "jackass in spirit" that has caused me to have harder than necessary days at work due to his negligence. I even filled out a negative tip once. There was the total line, on the tip line I put -$15.00 and subtracted it from the total. I'd also like to rephrase what D'kian just said below. A bad waiter can make what should have been a good experience into a bad one, a good one can turn what should have been a disaster into an alright or even great experience. I pay for that. Re: The book example. Of course you shouldn't pay for the book, that's a good and you got nothing at all. In this instance I wouldn't stop doing business with them either - unless they tried to make me pay for it. You see, in these examples, your good simply isn't there. Your service is, and the question is: to what extent? There are so many restaurants out there I usually (again assuming his performance was good) tip the guy and try to find a better experience next time.

I was speaking of punishing the management/owner. I care who's at fault for something. I don't think I could ever make you see it. I could not possibly be more clear. But, hey, by the sounds of it, most of the people here are just drooling to find a reason to stiff the waiter anyway, and probably would have fun making fun of him, and making him look bad. That isn't not my game, nor my style.

Another thing, I never consider anything outside of a context. The waiter and I define a context, a relationship, in which he is trying to earn money directly from me. I have to judge his performance by the standards of his context - what is reasonable within his power to control. I do not expect him to be at two places at once, do other people's job, repair the plumbing, don a cape and play the fiddle. I do him an injustice if I lazily don't consider the context, and I do myself an injustice by not dealing with men I trade with with all the rationality they deserve and I expect. I see this as no different than any other economic transaction or profession.

In the original example of JamesDL, it was not that it was busy period. It was busy,and there were extenuating circumstances outside of the waiter's control. Surely, it is not his fault that they are short staffed. Neither is it yours, nor indeed is it your problem. But I see no reason to punish him if I see him doing his job efficiently and maybe even superlatively under the circumstances. The tip to the waiter is for his services to you that you can reasonably judge to be under his control. Some are and some are not. The amount of your bill is for all other goods and services that you have received. If the circumstances outside of his control lead inevitably to bad service, I would consider removing my money from the establishment itself. If enough people do this, if it is systemic enough, the waiter will also leave where he can be unfettered in his efforts to be rewarded by your tips. I see no reason to make him suffer if he is not the cause of your diminished experience. For the same reason, if my cable goes out and I have to call them out, I don't chew out the poor bastard on the other end. His feelings aren't my problem, nor is it my problem that it isn't his fault, that doesn't mean that I get to treat him like meat (which a lot of people do). Is the "sooooo" condescension? As a former waiter myself I find a lot of people's attitude on this subject insulting. Of course, I didn't take sh** from customers, you'd been out on yer ass mate! PS. I cook now. I do $14 hr + tips. Ahh, life ain't fair...

This isn't nonsensical. It is called considering the context of the person you are dealing with. I have worked with some very professional waiters who take a lot of care knowing everything about the menu they are going to serve: what spices are in every dish in case of food allergies, and simply knowing the product they are selling, how it is prepared, what cut of meat, where it is from, etc. They know everything about their wine selection and what will go best with what food, and can even recommend the right cigar to go with the right port. They can set you up with a taxi or a chauffer service to go around town, they know the proper nightspots for different people, where to go and where not to, etc. To (all food service people in my current state have to do this by law but not every one I have lived in) taking classes in proper food handling and sanitation. To keeping their cool with people that don't deserve it. You make it sound like (and maybe you eat at dives, I don't know) some lard ass walks up and down an aisle dumping plates from point A to point B. On a slow day that is what it can feel like and it is DEATH. The number of disparate concretes that a good waiter has to hold in his/her head at any time during a rush is in defiance of the crow epistemology; and that is if everything is going like a well oiled machine. Often it does not, and I think it is my responsibilty to consider that context, and maybe I will not eat at that establishment again IF I can deem that it is soemthing about the establishment itself and not the fact that the gas main blew a leak 30 minutes before I came in. But I will not sit there like some Niles and Frasier Crane and blithely ignore facts because it is "not my problem", that it is "not my problem" is "not the point". I find some of the attitudes here disturbing, and I hope some of you don't frequent any establishments. One reason (besides being in the business so long) I tip so well is they are ultimately in control of what end of me that food comes back out. I want them well paid and motivated for my own personal safety. Though I don't tip on the principle of extortion, I enjoy giving a nice fat tip. I do 18% or so for average (that means no problems, but nothing stood out, but that can vary for waitresses as I have a "butt tip" system) to 35% for excellent. If I've had a smash of a time I might just leave 50%. I guarantee you I'm getting that table and my meal long before you. I also, if I am going to be picky, send a few bucks back into the kitchen.