I guess... perhaps for me, what was more 'distasteful' is that
instead of clarifying the facts, stating the sequence of
events and leaving the reader to come to his own conclusion
(which everyone, including me, has already more or less
concluded: that the blogger is a cheapo who took unscrupulous
advantage to squeeze what he could out of an invitation of
goodwill), they included judgement of the blogger and a
personal attack on him.
That's not very .. professional of a company I guess. Afterall,
they DID invite him, but what they didn't do is, at the moment he
said he has 4 guests, they should clarify with him at the onset
that the invitation was for 2. This would have prevented the
misunderstanding from occurring at all.
Schedule of
events
According to the screenshot posted by Brad, the lunch
invitation on Jun 2 only invites him alone.
On Jun 9, Brad replied he is busy but will get back with a
date.
On Aug 20, Brad said he will be coming for brunch tasting on
sunday (which is Aug 22 ). The reply is more than 6 weeks.
On Aug 21, Melanie emailed and asked whether Brad is bringing a
guest. (note the word 'a' instead of 'any')
On the same day, Brad replied he is bringing 3 guests.
Some
comments
1. Brad said "In the invite, i was
told to bring a guest." Being told to bring a guest is not the same
as being asked whether he is bringing a guest. There is nowhere
stating you are told to bring a guest.
2. Brad tried to dispute
this:
"Story: I had informed the restaurant that I was a food
blogger, therefore assuming that the bill for all 4 of us would be
waived.
Fact: In truth, I had asked for no waiver. I paid for
my other two companions. The bill for 2, inclusive of sparkling
wine, came to $260. Out of goodwill, they did decide to waive the
wine and I eventually paid $160 for 2"
But you went on to say "It was an oversight to assume to that no
acknowledgement from Melanie about my 3 accompanying guests would
mean that their meals would be on the house too"
So you did assume the bill for all 4 would be waived.
3. Brad said: "I was not expected to be billed
for and then “waived” off from what was disguised as a “food
tasting session"
Brad also said "When I dine out, I pay for my food like any
regular consumer. When I am invited for food tasting sessions, it
is a mutual understanding between the inviter and myself, that I
would be attending as the identity of media for a possible food
review"
To Brad:
Why did you not expected to be
billed when you said you pay for your food when you dine out? If
they waived it off, shouldn't you be happy?
If you said you are attending as
the identity of media, you think too highly of yourself. Is that
why you throw your card at the counter?
