Mmmmm, Crab Rangoons...
Posted on 06/04/2009 7:46:20 AM PDT by GonzoII
Pardon me for not taking the bait, but I am interested in discussing gluttony.
As for Christ’s example of fasting in the desert, I simply said that was the premiere example of fasting in the Bible, for me.
What have you to say about the sin of gluttony? Anything logical, or experiential, or theoretical?
Yeah...I need an occasional beer. :-)
But that IS the issue of the debate. If it’s been proven that when any item doesn’t sell that item is removed from the offerings then there’s no need to prove with a specific item that it has been removed for lack of sales. We already know that if said item’s sales drop below a certain threshold it will go away. So you’re repeated demanding of proof of that happening with large portion sizes was pointless and silly. If you accept the concept that when X doesn’t sell X goes away you have already accepted that if large portioned items don’t sell portion sizes will shrink, thus no proof of it already happening with that specific item should even be asked for. It was silly to keep hounding over and over again.
Words mean things....
The word of the Day is IF....IF-IF-IF-IF.......IF
An observational sentence describing potential marketing trends spirals into this?
I thought I was Relentless!
You’re still not understanding. There are multiple factors involved in consumer food item choices. It is incumbent on the restaurateur to determine what factor or factors are involved in the poor sales results of an item.
The other poster was saying that there was proof that consumers stop buying large portion items, and that the result of that was the restaurant stopped offering the item.
For some reason, you’re stuck on trying to make this a supply & demand type capitalism issue - restaurants respond to consumer buying decisions. It isn’t.
Instead, it is strictly a consumer purchasing decision issue. I don’t think consumers in the U. S. are rejecting large portion menu items, by and large.
Also, I suspect there is a confusion on this thread about cause and effect, and about the reason for a restaurant to pull a menu item. IOW, what comes first - the restaurant pulls an item because they weren’t making a sufficient profit on it, and if they pulled it in response to consumer choices, was it because the item wasn’t tasty enough, or maybe because consumers didn’t perceive the large portion item as a good value.
Maybe consumers began buying two small rather than one large, because they learned they got the same quantity for less money. So, maybe the owner does a little market research and decides that if he lowers the price of the large or raises the price of the small, he can seel more large portions.
IOW, rather than stopping the sale of the large portion item, the restaurant changes the price structure. That’s not what SJSAMPLE said he had proof of. He asserted that if consumers stopped buying, the restaurant would stop offering. Oh, and it also runs counter to your assertion that, “when X doesn’t sell X goes away”. Hmmmmm.
Still think it’s a silly argument?
See #125 for relentless. LOL.
Sorry but you’re obfuscating. If you accept this “it is proven that when customers flee from Item X, regardless of what Item X is, businesses stop selling it” to be true then you also accept this “It’s a proven fact that these restaurants will stop offering/selling these items if the customers stop buying them” to be true. Because in the end they’re the same sentence, except one is general and one is specific. If you agree that the general is true then arguing for proof of the specific is silly because the truth of the general statement IS the proof of the specific example.
This thread fairly screamed for Mr. Creosote.
That's what you would get, if you were my dinner-guest.
At most restaurants, there's very little crab. (Cheap, cheese-paring bastards ...)
You replying to #125. Near the end of #125, I offer some alternatives to the concept of ‘if they stop buying I stop selling’. That’s too simplistic, and the more complicated flow of events invalidates your assumption in #127 that if I’ve accepted one I’ve accepted the other.
In the specific case at hand, as I’ve explained upthread more than once, there are multiple factors involved in consumer purchasing decisions. You’re over-simplifying. Nobody has yet made the case that consumers are rejecting large portion food items. If that case were made, it would have to include isolation of the reason for the rejection to the one individual factor, large portions.
Life is complicated. So is this issue.
If you’re going to say it’s too simplistic then you aren’t accepting it as true. So now you’re recanting from what you said in 115. Thanks you just proved that you’re really just arguing to argue. We’re done.
Have fun ~ I give up!
Apparently it depends on what the meaning of IF is.....
I though I knew...
Maybe it’s like Spanish with Si and Si’
Mmmmm, Crab Rangoons...
I’m done with him. It’s been pretty well established he just wants to argue. Isn’t there a section for that? I guess for some people it’s the whole internet.
I was trying to be easier to get along with in #115. The more I think about this, I see that it’s not as simplistic as that. It’s an over-generalization to say ‘if they stop buying I stop selling’.
Ha - that one's a keeper ;)
That’s an excellent cartoon. The thing is, I read the article at the blog, and it was short, and excellent. I was really hoping to discuss gluttony, but evidently there were more important things...
As Luther once said, ever man has an idol in his belly. The trick is to control it. Controlling ones appetite and doing things in moderation will bring you far.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.