dogmatic statement
Jul. 31st, 2006 03:30 pmA restaurant, the name of which is formed by making a possessive out of a noun not traditionally used as a given name, but which is descriptive or evocative of the restaurant's food or entertainment or the ethnic group which produces said food, will be a bad restaurant. Examples: Chili's, TGI Friday's, Taquito's. Corollary: A restaurant named similarly but with a plural instead of a possessive will be more expensive and marginally better, but rarely worth it. Examples: Plums, Scallions, Tapas. Second corollary: Any business named in the former naming category is sure to be an unpleasant franchise and should be avoided. Example: Tire's Warehouse.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-01 12:22 am (UTC)http://www.milestonesrestaurants.com/
(warning: Bad music on website)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-01 12:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-01 06:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-01 02:11 am (UTC)on another note, i missed actually meeting you vis-a-vis again this weekend! i'll be around again next weekend, though. we should get coffffeeeee!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-01 06:21 am (UTC)Hmm.. do you exist? or was that a dummy in the car?
vis-a-vis
Date: 2006-08-01 04:12 pm (UTC)Some time ago I decided that it's too hard for me to decide when (ever?) it's proper to use vis-a-vis to mean "with respect to," so I stopped, and for many years I've made myself say "with respect to" exclusively in that context.
Your post reminds me that I also gave up the perfectly sensible way to use vis-a-vis that you used! So, well, thanks.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-01 02:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-01 06:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-08-01 02:27 pm (UTC)