YOUR UTAH CRIME UPDATE
Low-carb larceny at Chuck-a-Rama
(Thanks to Peter Gregory and Jeff Meyerson and Lisa W and Rose)
« Previous | Main | Next »
Low-carb larceny at Chuck-a-Rama
(Thanks to Peter Gregory and Jeff Meyerson and Lisa W and Rose)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The comments to this entry are closed.
-Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |||||
3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
Beef Scarfers would be a weird nfarb. Chuck-a-Rama might be better, but it sounds more related to that barf bag site.
Yes, made it twice today (and #1 again).
Posted by: Jeff Meyerson | April 25, 2004 at 04:51 AM
Two pigs eating a cow.
Posted by: Lmd33 | April 25, 2004 at 05:15 AM
Let's face it, Jeff. One can make damn near anything into the name of a rock band.
Posted by: Gregg | April 25, 2004 at 05:16 AM
Even "Damn Near Anything" could bagnfarb.
Posted by: Gregg | April 25, 2004 at 05:18 AM
Good point, Gregg.
How about "E-Mail Address"?
Posted by: Jeff Meyerson | April 25, 2004 at 05:22 AM
Could be a good one too, actually. The website could have a link to "e-mail E-mail."
Posted by: Gregg | April 25, 2004 at 05:30 AM
I think the rock band should write a song about Sui Amaama at Chuck-a-Rama.
Posted by: loboll | April 25, 2004 at 05:32 AM
Haha! Yeah
Posted by: Gregg | April 25, 2004 at 05:37 AM
On the one hand, I've never thought of buffets as having limits. But on the other hand, I myself have limits. And I could never see asking for a total of twelve slices of anything! Surely there was something else that was low carb! That's just a shame!
SMFTC (who is still stuck on the twelve slices)
Posted by: SMFTC | April 25, 2004 at 06:48 AM
Did anybody else think the name "Chuck-A-Rama" was a joke? Or maybe that it needed a first syllable--like Up?
Posted by: SMFTC | April 25, 2004 at 07:06 AM
I just love these people who think they can do Atkins and South Beach by eating every protein in site in mass quantities and still lose weight. Lmd33, you're right: definitely two pigs eating a cow.
Posted by: Webmom | April 25, 2004 at 07:49 AM
Lmd33, SMFTC, Webmom, I agree. It seems they were heavily into low-carb, but forgot to count their calories.
Lmd33, did you see Dave's column today? Looks like even his daughter has Ken parked in a corner, but not quite all alone ;-)
Posted by: eadn | April 25, 2004 at 08:44 AM
If that name of the place is any indication, the roast beef couldn't possibly have been THAT good.
Posted by: MeL | April 25, 2004 at 10:18 AM
"I think the rock band should write a song about Sui Amaama at Chuck-a-Rama." Loboll, you are defnitely on to something. It already rhymes.
"On the one hand, I've never thought of buffets as having limits." SMFTC, you are so right. Yeah, maybe 12 slices of roast beef was a little piggy (well, no, that would be 12 slices of pork), but it was a buffet, for crying out loud! Unless it said there was a limit on how much you could eat, the manager was way out of line, and calling the police says to me he's got a great future as a fast food restaurant manager.
As for the low carb pigout, you need to use common sense. I'm on South Beach and have lost a lot, but my wife says it's becaue I'm eating fewer calories. People who think they can eat a house as long as it's low carbs are apt to be baffled to find they're not losing a lot of weight.
Posted by: Jeff Meyerson | April 25, 2004 at 10:58 AM
"Unless it said there was a limit on how much you could eat, the manager was way out of line..."
As someone who has recently braved the depths of fast-food and (more fearsomely) rude customers who believe they are entitled to things simply because it's not explicitly stated that they are not, I have a bit of insight into the manager's state of mind.
Is it out of line for a manager to tell someone that they are abusing the buffet system? No. To say that a couple has consumed more than enough beef, and that the other customers should be allowed to have some as well? No. And when the customers complain, demand a refund, refuse to leave the premises, and begin making a scene, to call the police? No. He's doing exactly what every good restaurant manager should do. There was a difficult decision, he made a tough call, and his boss probably congratulated him on making it right.
Posted by: Kai | April 25, 2004 at 11:17 AM
" his boss probably congratulated him on making it right." Maybe Kai, but I don't think getting slammed on Dave's website will look that great on his resume. Now will working at Upchuck-a-Rama.
Posted by: Jeff Meyerson | April 25, 2004 at 02:44 PM
atkins != unlimited beef. sheesh.
Posted by: rolando | April 25, 2004 at 10:35 PM
Kai -- good point. Really, they must realize that other paying customers want some of that beef too. Can't hog it all, despite what their crazy diet says.
::waiting for the low-carb hooplah to die::
Posted by: JCT | April 26, 2004 at 06:07 AM
Chuck-gate?
Beef-gate?
Kai: well said. Also in line with just about ANY retail store that runs a sale: They have the disclaimer that 'management reserves the right to limit quantities.'
Had a hard time believing that the 'offended' customer 'demanded' a refund. What about those eleven pieces of roast beef you'd already eaten, Dear? Or did you think the buffet was free until you ate that twelfth slice?
Posted by: MOTW | April 26, 2004 at 07:15 AM
This was very poorly handled. I mean, why not go the obvious way of embarrassing the customer into not eating more?
Wow! You sure are hungry today, Tubby!
Ladies and Gentlemen, your attention please, can we get a round of applause for the immense couple over here? They are about to set a world record for the most beef eaten by a human couple!
Posted by: Christobol | April 26, 2004 at 10:34 AM
Christobol - But it's low-carb, so it must be okay! ;) Even if it has 2000 calories in it.
Posted by: JCT | April 26, 2004 at 11:12 AM