Comments on: Link-O-Rama http://aarongleeman.com/2013/02/15/link-o-rama-109/ Baseball news, insight and analysis from Aaron Gleeman Thu, 02 Jul 2015 02:20:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.2 By: toby http://aarongleeman.com/2013/02/15/link-o-rama-109/comment-page-1/#comment-34854 Sat, 16 Feb 2013 21:25:35 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=92487#comment-34854 I’ve been a server forever. Up charges for neat are certainly not the norm, but I’ve worked at places and have consumed drinks at countless more where there are up charges for ordering on the rocks and had people complain about this. The reason for that is not a charge for the ice itself. It is rather the same as that given (and immediately ignored by the author, apparently) by the manager in the article: a LARGER POUR associated with that call. Not twice as much for you 2 dollars. Not half again. But still: Larger. Probably 2 vs. 1.5 ounces (or 2.25 vs 1.75 or 2.5 vs 2). Something like that. Why? Probably because otherwise cheapasses (many of whom have money coming out of their ears) will complain about a standard shot being too small when there’s no mixer to fill out the glass. Kind of like Devin Leonard, Lifestyle Reporter for Bloomberg Business did about his pour.

Did Leonard willfully ignore the part where he was told the bar had poured him a larger drink than it otherwise would have because it was called “neat”? Did he just disbelieve them, given his expert liquid-volume-measuring-eye? As to the fact that it’s not a standard up charge: who cares? If a particular establishment, as a matter of course, gives a bigger pour when a drink is order “on the rocks” or “neat” or with freaking olive juice and salt, what’s the complaint? That you wanted ONLY AND EXACTLY one standard shot – NO MORE! – at whatever the price for a standard shot is (which can vary a helluva lot from joint to joint – easily by the 2 dollars he’s disputing), and that the extra liquor and its associated charge is therefore totally unwanted and unwarranted? “I don’t want the other 1/2 ounce of this – I just wanted 1.5 ounces!” The extra charge is, by the way, in my experience ALWAYS less per additional quantum of booze than the initial charge. That’s right, cheap people: the “pour” upcharges are almost universally a GOOD DEAL.

The author’s a booze ignoramus, idiotically (and insistently – he doubles down in the course of the article’s narrative) equating “straight up” with “neat”. Who the hell orders bourbon chilled with ice and strained into a martini glass? Actually, what professional drinker says “STRAIGHT up” at all? Something tells me this guy doesn’t have the experience calling drinks he’s implying he has (or at least has never bothered to consult somebody actually working the industry as to whether his assumptions are correct), especially since he’s clearly riding high on the currently uber-fashionable in monied asshat circles Bourbon Connoissieur Bandwagon. Only people who learned how to order how to order drinks from movies and television (i.e. most dill holes in bars on weekend nights or at happy hour after work) say “straight up”. There’s a reason the server asked for clarification. Professional drinkers say “neat” or “up” because “straight up” is what amateurs LOVE to say no matter what they actually want. They think “straight up” sounds cool, so they assume it means whatever they want. But for the record: If you order a liquor “straight up”, you just ordered it shaken/stirred with ice and strained into a stemmed glass. That’s what it means. Not “whatever, just no ice,” like Mr. Bloomberg wishes it did.

SO before you rage, remember Gleeman: if there’s an upcharge for rocks, if there’s an upcharge for making it a martini, if there’s any kind of upcharge not clearly associated with the price of a mixer (i.e. red bull, fancy ginger beer, juices at better places that use decent juices, etc.), YOU’RE GETTING MORE BOOZE and it’s almost assuredly costing you less per drop that the original pour. So settle down.

(Ah, but “it wasn’t much of a pour”. A dime for every jackass who thought his pour was too small because he doesn’t understand how fooled he’s been in the past by the optical illusions of thickly bottomed, particularly shaped glassware and I could… well, at least sponsor your podcast for a week. But all the beer money would be for you – Bonnes and his “feelings” about objectively verifiable baseball things get no beer from me.)

]]>
By: Jeff http://aarongleeman.com/2013/02/15/link-o-rama-109/comment-page-1/#comment-34852 Sat, 16 Feb 2013 17:17:35 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=92487#comment-34852 Not to mention, the show is set in the most multicultural city in the world but somehow only features white people. And she writes things like “You look like a Mexican teenager.”, like that’s a terrible thing.

]]>
By: Todd-garlogic http://aarongleeman.com/2013/02/15/link-o-rama-109/comment-page-1/#comment-34846 Fri, 15 Feb 2013 14:41:10 +0000 http://aarongleeman.com/?p=92487#comment-34846 I HATE Girls. I have broad tastes in comedy. I like it all. And I tend to have low standards for my TV shows. I will give most shows a try. And so after the Emmys I decided to give “Girls” another shot. I watched the first 2 episodes. But it really isn’t an entertaining show. The characters are unlikable. So it better be funny. It isn’t. The humor is sparse. The Emporer’s New Clothes comes to mind with this show.

]]>