Nor am I familiar with you, your book or your blog, RickLax. I dislike you because you raised a ruckus in a public place over a substitution charge which was clearly itemized on the menu. You were willing to pay $15 for a goddamn fish sandwich, but pitched a hissyfit over an additional $2.50 which, with your substitution request, you were obligated to pay.
And then, when some absolute asshat antagonizes countless people on this board while coming to your dubious defense, you sidle up to him and thank him for defending your honor. Birds of a feather.
Define 'ruckus'. Because asking the waitress if there was a mistake isn't a ruckus. The waitress escalated it to a manager, with whom Rick spoke. This is also not a ruckus.
There was no hissyfit. There was no ruckus. Your 'hate' is self-created. And deplorable.
I didn't antagonize anyone. I merely got involved in the discussion. A-holes like you antagonized the situation, once again proving that even law student can be short sighted and create facts in situations where none existed (contrary to your training as a law student).
The sad thing is that even after the last few days, you can't be bothered to re-read the original post to see if, in fact, there was a ruckus or a hissyfit. Instead, you found it much easier to make yourself look as stupid as you very well might be by creating facts that don't exist. You injected your own perception of how the events unfolded based on your personal distaste for Rick.
So, you want to be a lawyer? Good luck with those arguments where you stipulate to facts that you made up. Let me know how long it is before I can read all about you on the ARDC website.
Allow me to break down the story so even a complete waste of space like you can understand:
Rick ordered a $15 fish sandwich. He asked if he could substitute a baked potato for french fries and was told "yes". When the bill came, Rick noticed that instead of being charged $15, he was charged $17.50 and asked why. The waitress told him that it was their policy and then she got a manager. The manager told rick that it was on the menu and their policy. Rick told him that he was unaware that he would be charged for the substitution and that the waitress didn't tell him about the charge. The manager showed him the menu, so rick told him that he would pay. The manager took the $2.50 off the bill and Rick paid. End of story.
That's called a 'brief' and contains all the relevant facts.
Please tell me where the ruckus and hissyfit are. Then tell me that you are looking forward to arguing in court, because I get my kicks reading ardc reports about lawyers who lie to the court and add facts to their argument that are baseless.
Grow up, moron. You can't go through life hating people for situations that occur only in your tiny brain.
If you look at the story, some of the things the manager and waitress said don't really make sense. And some of the things ricklax says aren't really consistent.
For example, most waitresses wouldn't go get the manager if that's all that happened - not saying it's impossible that the waitress was crazy, but it's more likely ricklax wasn't being as calm as he'd have you believe. Also, ricklax said early on that he wasn't willing to pay the 2.50, but left that out when telling the story here. (the exchange with the manager doesn't make sense unless rick indicated at some point he wasn't paying the 2.50)
So my point is I think you need to read between the lines a little and realize that ricklax was throwing more of a hissy fit than he's leading on.
Look, I'm definitely capable of throwing a hissy fit. Not going to pretend otherwise. But in this case, I just wasn't. I was with a friend who I didn't know that well...and like I said, if it were a date, I wouldn't have mentioned it. If it were a close friend, I might have put up a big fight. But this was somebody I only knew kinda well, and I behaved myself.