Is calling a poster a cheap jerk appropriate for the green? September 6, 2007 12:31 PM   Subscribe

This guy is getting an awful lot of insulting and unhelpful responses, most calling him petty, a jerk, and cheap (based upon the supposed cost of his wedding and inferred wealth). Appropriate?
posted by cmgonzalez to Etiquette/Policy at 12:31 PM (149 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

No. It's okay to tell the OP that he may be overreacting or that what he's totally pissed off about other people would consider normal, but calling the guy names is pretty much against the rules and not terribly appropriate.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:36 PM on September 6, 2007


It's a monster of a question. He's got every right to ask it, and is essentially asking if he's being a cheap jerk. Some people are saying yes, with greater or lesser degrees of enthusiasm.

With something like this, where it's a legit question asking for opinions on something involving etiquette and piles of money, people tend to respond kind of vigorously. I just skimmed through the thread and didn't see anything that looked wildly out of line—when I first saw it, there hadn't been any flagging action, either.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:38 PM on September 6, 2007


(And, I see! The comment jessamyn nuked was pretty lame and grandstandy.)
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:47 PM on September 6, 2007


There are several borderline comments in there. There's no reason for other people to get upset about this guy's decisions on this issue. If you can't offer something calm and constructive then piss right out of the green scene.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:51 PM on September 6, 2007


Just about to post this cmgonzalez:

Calling the OP a tool, a royal first-class jerk, saying the poster is engaged in , implications of classism and unknowable statements the poster spent too much. Casting shame(!) onto the OP. This is not following the guidelines of AskMe.

cortex writes "essentially asking if he's being a cheap jerk"

The OP may be "essentially" asking that but they sure didn't use the term jerk anything equally insulting. Not even toward the DJ and Company.
posted by Mitheral at 12:51 PM on September 6, 2007


That should have been "saying the poster is engaged in nickel and diming jackassery", my html got messed up.
posted by Mitheral at 12:52 PM on September 6, 2007


Yeah, too many responses in that thread seemed to stem from resentment that the OP could afford an expensive wedding. I read the question as seeking advice on the OP's legal options and procedures for contesting a debt, not as as request for opinions on whether he is "being cheap."
posted by brain_drain at 12:57 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


Its ok to tell the OP he is out of line. He is asking for advice in this regard.

But, I think he is asking for advice from his peer group and the best advice you can give is acting as if you were his peer.

That is, if he was a friend of yours you might say "To be honest, Bob, I do think you may be out of line here. And is this really worth it?" but the name-calling, the accusations of classism and so on are out of line.

One deleted comment mentioned, in an outraged tone, that they'd been to weddings which didn't even cost much more than the price of that disputed meal. Thats great, but that poster should consider that that attitude makes them disqualified to rationally evaluate the question and provide valuable advice to the OP.
posted by vacapinta at 12:58 PM on September 6, 2007


lol. one time this wedding band i played in showed up at the wrong hall. we hauled our equipment in and were invited to partake of the meal. we were happily devouring food and sloshing down beer when we noticed some other guys hauling in equipment too. figuring things out, we quietly removed our stuff, motored down the block to the correct hall, and enjoyed another repast before the first set.
posted by quonsar at 1:02 PM on September 6, 2007 [8 favorites]


Wedding DJs get paid how much? Holy fuck.

*assembles PA, gets gig*

Wait, you want me to play what!? Holy fuck.

*packs gear, returns check, goes home*
posted by loquacious at 1:07 PM on September 6, 2007 [4 favorites]


vacapinta writes "One deleted comment mentioned, in an outraged tone, that they'd been to weddings which didn't even cost much more than the price of that disputed meal. "

That was solid-one-love: "Shit, I've been to weddings where the total budget including invitations was less than the cost of one of your dinners.".

I'd like to see that for any conventional definition of wedding. Heck in BC the license and officiant is more than $140.
posted by Mitheral at 1:07 PM on September 6, 2007


I got married in an alley, next to a dumpster, and we served cheetos and Kool-Aid at the reception. Wore a trash bag for a dress, and the guys wore matching terry-cloth robes. The whole thing cost $37, and I really don't think it's appropriate for anyone to spend any more than that on something SO stupid as a wedding when there are people in other countries dying of bird-AIDS.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:08 PM on September 6, 2007 [45 favorites]


What TPS said. Nobody's valuable fking opinion of the wedding costs involved has any relevancy whatsoever. Answer the fking question, is all.
posted by BorgLove at 1:15 PM on September 6, 2007


I got married in an alley, next to a dumpster, and we served cheetos and Kool-Aid at the reception. Wore a trash bag for a dress, and the guys wore matching terry-cloth robes. The whole thing cost $37, and I really don't think it's appropriate for anyone to spend any more than that on something SO stupid as a wedding when there are people in other countries dying of bird-AIDS.

Yes, but did you have a couples-only dance? Because THAT'S really tacky.
posted by pineapple at 1:18 PM on September 6, 2007 [3 favorites]


You served cheetos? You opulent profligate fuck. We served dirt. And we liked it.
posted by found missing at 1:20 PM on September 6, 2007


Dirt? I bet it was that premium dirt they sell in bags at home depot. We're putting out a barrel of broken glass.
posted by electroboy at 1:22 PM on September 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


This seems like the best place to say that I was impressed with this level-headed follow-up from the OP. It would have been easy to get offended in that thread, even by the undeleted comments. Nicely done, elbaso; you're an example to us all.

(Also, congratulations on your nuptials.)
posted by juliplease at 1:23 PM on September 6, 2007


ha, found missing. An alley? We would have killed to get married in an alley. I got married in a rolled up newspaper.
posted by pb (staff) at 1:27 PM on September 6, 2007


The poster wasn't asking if he's being a cheap jerk. He was asking about protocol when one feels one has been ripped off, albeit for a small amount of money, and specifically what the consequences would be regarding credit reporting agencies. I'm disappointed-- the green really could yield some helpful fact-based answers on this topic if people didn't have their heads up their asses.

Nowhere did I see a Scrooge asking "So, like, I'm filthy rich, but would I look like a total cheapskate if I cared about any financial dispute under $200?"
posted by conch soup at 1:29 PM on September 6, 2007


There has never been a bride as gorgeous in a drawstring trash bag. And the sandwich bag shoes with the twist tie laces were lovely.
posted by jerseygirl at 1:31 PM on September 6, 2007


Something old: sandwich bags (with moldy sandwich crumbs inside)
Something new: new trash bag!
Something borrowed: Burger King crown
Something blue: twist ties
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:34 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


I just want to point out that I don't think I've ever had a single meal (albeit, 3 courses) that was anywhere near $140. I'm jealous. It must've been fantastic.
posted by Ms. Saint at 1:35 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


Nicely done, elbaso; you're an example to us all.

See, that's why he's rich!
posted by smackfu at 1:37 PM on September 6, 2007


You make an excellent point, smackfu. Why aren't my level head and natural charm raking it in, huh? Internet-personality virtues have gotten me nowhere.
posted by juliplease at 1:41 PM on September 6, 2007


Ah, if favorites were money, we'd all be rich!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:42 PM on September 6, 2007 [3 favorites]




...says the lady hustlin' counterfeit twenties.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:45 PM on September 6, 2007


On no preview, god damn it. Stupid internet people knowing Monty Python sketches.
posted by mckenney at 1:45 PM on September 6, 2007


Ah, if favorites were money, we'd all be rich!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:42 PM on September 6


Yeah but the inflation would make our favs worthless. Luckily, the mods took the bold move of restricting the fav flow by setting a daily cap, otherwise where would we be now?
posted by vacapinta at 1:46 PM on September 6, 2007


I just want to point out that I don't think I've ever had a single meal (albeit, 3 courses) that was anywhere near $140. I'm jealous. It must've been fantastic.

It was probably that Kobe beef where the Dalai Lama rubs his dick over each piece.

Served with some vegetables that the Dalai Lama rubbed his dick on.

And some champagne that-

Well, all right, you see what I'm saying, the Dalai Lama is rubbing his dick on a lot of food these days.
posted by Greg Nog at 1:46 PM on September 6, 2007 [9 favorites]


See, that's so boizone, Greg Nog!!! If you were TRULY enlightened, you wouldn't have forgotten to mention all the food Mother Theresa rubbed her vag on.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:48 PM on September 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


LUXURY!!!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:48 PM on September 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


Everything about that thread makes me never ever ever want to have a big, formal wedding. Ugh.
posted by emd3737 at 1:48 PM on September 6, 2007


That being said, I'll happily snarf down a $140 dinner at other people's weddings, I just wouldn't want to plan and pay for such an event.
posted by emd3737 at 1:51 PM on September 6, 2007


Also, TPS, I bet Britney is gonna kick. your. ASS. when she finds out you copied all her wedding ideas. Maybe sue you or something.
posted by pineapple at 1:52 PM on September 6, 2007


I am totally suing you, emd3737, for stealing my $140 meal.
posted by electroboy at 1:54 PM on September 6, 2007


I just want to point out that I don't think I've ever had a single meal (albeit, 3 courses) that was anywhere near $140. I'm jealous. It must've been fantastic.

I've had dinners that cost more than that and I can tell you, first hand, that money != quality. And considering this was probably a wedding where the quantity mattered more than the quality, I'm guessing the couple didn't get the most bank for their buck food wise.
posted by Stynxno at 1:55 PM on September 6, 2007


I just want to point out that I don't think I've ever had a single meal (albeit, 3 courses) that was anywhere near $140

And I'd like to point out that it was a wedding, an event for which vendors customarily raise their prices anywhere from 50% to 200% over normal costs.

It was probably "only" a $75-dollar meal.

Unless the caterer was Thomas Keller.

In which case I'm super jealous.
posted by dersins at 1:56 PM on September 6, 2007


I'm embarrassed for everyone. Especially for the person who asked the question. 140 dollars per person is too much to spend on a wedding meal because there are many starving people in the world who will never get to eat truffle sauce on pork loin, or bluefin tuna steaks with aioli, or that polenta crap they always stick the vegetarians with. So he should be sad that there are starving people and maybe the DJ is one of them.

If I decide to marry my life partner (who is a woman, but I don't care if you think I am gay or not because I am gay positive, but I am just saying that my life partner is a woman), we will just have some tempeh and quinoa for the meal, and we will not have a DJ because I would rather get that group of Quechuas who wear colorful ponchos and play indigenous songs in the street for my wedding. But I would let them eat all the tempe and quinoa that they would like.
posted by Mayor Peace Love and Unity at 2:00 PM on September 6, 2007 [5 favorites]


I would let them eat all the tempe ... that they would like.

Does Arizona State know about this?
posted by dersins at 2:02 PM on September 6, 2007


MPLaU, you are a generous and worthy soul who is also obviously not married if you think that you, the groom, decides such things. But I like you anyway.
posted by misha at 2:10 PM on September 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


I got married in an alley, next to a dumpster, and we served cheetos and Kool-Aid at the reception. Wore a trash bag for a dress, and the guys wore matching terry-cloth robes. The whole thing cost $37, and I really don't think it's appropriate for anyone to spend any more than that on something SO stupid as a wedding when there are people in other countries dying of bird-AIDS.

You're married?
posted by timeistight at 2:10 PM on September 6, 2007


If you were TRULY enlightened, you wouldn't have forgotten to mention all the food Mother Theresa rubbed her vag on.

I have a "Black Hole of Calcutta" joke all lined up but I just can't pull the trigger.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:12 PM on September 6, 2007


*had a huge four day wedding overseas and it was fabulous*
posted by Burhanistan at 2:12 PM on September 6, 2007


The guy (also a friend) who played the organ at my wedding disappeared after the ceremony, so we had to track him down and tell him he was welcome to join us for the dinner.

So hire indie musicians, I suppose. :)
posted by soundofsuburbia at 2:15 PM on September 6, 2007



I have to say (or I suppose I don't have to, but, eh -) I think it's just difficult to face a totally different context sometimes. If you've had a big wedding and dealt with multi-tier meals etc, maybe this kind of question fits within a normal scheme of things, but I really think that from the outside, this is the kind of thing that you simply cannot translate using other cultural norms. I thought people were being pretty polite, really, and by the end of the thread, I could feel sympathetic to a degree & sort of understand the whole issue, but honestly, the first time I read that question, all I could do was shake my head and stare at it like, what? seriously? are you shitting me?

I mean, I knew that meant I shouldn't try to answer, but, from a person who's never had to deal with throwing a gigantic party and handling all the individuals trying to take advantage or whatever, it kinda seemed nutty that someone spending presumably thousands of dollars on the eve would be stopping a check over a free meal.

(and this isn't even, ha ha, I'm a tight-assed moralist for being uncomfortable with extravagant weddings, because I'm just talking about if you have the big wedding, you can afford to let him also take his $25 doggie bag home even though you saw that he also ate one of the plates of a no-show, that otherwise would have been thrown out)
posted by mdn at 2:16 PM on September 6, 2007


I know what Tempe tastes like.

Cottonwood trees, creosote bushes, tweakers, spoiled yuppie loinfruit, crass commercialism, overused cars, heaping piles of bird shit and just a touch of unwashed, remaindered hippy as a garnish.

It's the same taste you'd get if you blended an organic food co-op, a P.F. Changs, a Chili's and the sticky-greasy Birkenstock of a street busker together into a smoothie and baked it on the dashboard of your car in 120 degree heat.
posted by loquacious at 2:16 PM on September 6, 2007 [5 favorites]


If you were TRULY enlightened, you wouldn't have forgotten to mention all the food Mother Theresa rubbed her vag on.

Yes! I've had the theresa de mère rump roast au jus and it was to die for!
posted by pardonyou? at 2:21 PM on September 6, 2007


Sounds like a guy with anger and control issues to me. He needs to save every penny he can for his divorce.
posted by psmealey at 2:25 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


it kinda seemed nutty that someone spending presumably thousands of dollars on the eve would be stopping a check over a free meal.

Question, and I come at this from the perspective of someone who thinks spending money on a big party is normal but doesn't have a totally perfect handle on things like this whole subprime fracas,

how is this any different from if the OP had said, "I was buying this $30,000 car, and when I got home I realized the dealer had put on the $200 cup-holder-liners that I specifically said in writing I did not want, so I'm going to set things right"...?

Is it a matter of "what's the big deal quibbling over 2% of X, as long as X is > $10,000" ...or is it a matter of "what's 2% of X, if the services or goods purchased are considered frivolous by other people"?
posted by pineapple at 2:26 PM on September 6, 2007 [3 favorites]


That's how rich people stay rich though. Giving a crap about the $25 or $140 in spite of the larger overall cost. Even though they can afford it doesn't mean they are lighting their cigars with Ben Franklins. I'm sure the wedding was budgeted and saved for and it's their choice to have a lavish wedding. More power to them.

There's a surprising amount of bitterness and jealousy in that thread. That said, this is the closest thing I've had to a crazy ass relationshipfilter thread and I thank the OP for posting it.
posted by spec80 at 2:27 PM on September 6, 2007 [3 favorites]


I answered the question as asked, and I won't make value judgments about the OP, but it does seem weird that the subject came up a few days later, "Hey, did you know the dj ate a meal AND took the vendor meal with him? What a scumbag!"
posted by misha at 2:28 PM on September 6, 2007


More like "Wow, that was good food! I was surprised you let the DJ have a guest meal. Oh, he wasn't supposed to? Are you going to let him get away with that? "
posted by smackfu at 2:30 PM on September 6, 2007


That's how rich people stay rich though. Giving a crap about the $25 or $140 in spite of the larger overall cost.

Rich people stay rich by managing the details, but they also stay rich by having a full understanding the overall costs of such interactions. Putting a stop payment on the check is going to cost another $25 or so, might open him up to a lawsuit, as well as the time and energy he's wasted already on such a niggling concern.

No one likes getting ripped off, but the energy and expense in trying to exact retribution potentially could dwarf his initial "losses".
posted by psmealey at 2:36 PM on September 6, 2007 [3 favorites]


..but they also stay rich by having a full understanding the overall costs of such interactions. Putting a stop payment on the check is going to cost another $25 or so, might open him up to a lawsuit, as well as the time and energy he's wasted already on such a niggling concern.

To be honest, thats exactly the sorts of things he was asking about in his question - which few people actually answered.
posted by vacapinta at 2:41 PM on September 6, 2007 [3 favorites]


That's how rich people stay rich though. Giving a crap about the $25 or $140 in spite of the larger overall cost

Sometimes there's a balancing point in there, though. Another person in my office had a client who would call her every month and question every little line item on his invoice (we billed hourly and sent out multi-page descriptions of services with our invoices). I don't believe he ended up getting anything knocked off his bill with this practice, but we sure as hell billed him our $150/hr. rate for his hour-and-a-half phone calls.
posted by LionIndex at 2:41 PM on September 6, 2007


We had a small wedding on the beach for a couple of hundred because we didn't have lot of money.

That said, if we had the money, we would have cheerfully treated our family and closest friends to $140 meal and a good time. It's easy to get all riled up about this and OMG the price, but WTF, why not if you got the money, treat yourself and the family and have a ball. Just be careful about the DJ, those bloodsuckers.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:53 PM on September 6, 2007


Just be careful about the DJ, those bloodsuckers.

Amen. And count your blessings you went with the DJ instead of a band. Those filthy bastards would have eaten 6 deluxe guest dinners and slept with all the bridesmaids besides.
posted by psmealey at 2:56 PM on September 6, 2007


slept with all the bridesmaids besides.

better than sleeping with all the bridesmaids' a-sides, I guess.
posted by dersins at 3:02 PM on September 6, 2007


What if the bridesmaids were double albums?
posted by ob at 3:08 PM on September 6, 2007


Singles remind me of kisses, albums remind of me of plans. What do double albums remind me of?
posted by psmealey at 3:10 PM on September 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


The rich don't get or stay rich by spending hours and hours trying to back out of $25 in spite. They do it by exploiting cheap labor and tax loopholes.
posted by kcm at 3:12 PM on September 6, 2007 [3 favorites]


Is it a matter of "what's the big deal quibbling over 2% of X, as long as X is > $10,000" ...or is it a matter of "what's 2% of X, if the services or goods purchased are considered frivolous by other people"?

I said something similar to this, in a comment that was deleted in the original thread.

The only thing that bothered me about the AskMe question was how out-of-step the guy was, with prevailing norms here. Indie weddings are the way to go, now. It's tacky to spend so much money on a wedding. He should be ashamed of being so materialistic and crass.
posted by jayder at 3:29 PM on September 6, 2007


He should be ashamed of being so materialistic and crass.

What commie bullshit. If he wants a big wedding then good for him.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:33 PM on September 6, 2007


A capitalist! Get 'im, fellas!
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:37 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


Original English Text:
That's how the rich stay rich

Translated to French:
C'est comment les riches riches de séjour

Translated back to English:
They is how the rich rich person of stay

Translated to German:
Sie sind wie die reiche reiche Person des Aufenthalts

Translated back to English:
They are like the rich rich person of the stay

Translated to Italian:
Sono come la persona ricca ricca del soggiorno

Translated back to English:
They are like the rich rich person of the stay

Translated to Portuguese:
São como a pessoa rica rica da estada

Translated back to English:
They are as the rich rich person of the sojourn

Translated to Spanish:
Están como la persona rica rica del sojourn

Translated back to English:
They are like the rich rich person of sojourn
posted by micayetoca at 3:37 PM on September 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


I think jayder was being sarcastic, Burhanistan.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:37 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


The only thing that bothered me about the AskMe question was how out-of-step the guy was, with prevailing norms here. Indie weddings are the way to go, now

Prevailing norms where? Across the world? Across all of the US? All social classes? Are you including immigrant cultures (many of which will still spend several times an annual salary for a wedding)?
posted by vacapinta at 3:38 PM on September 6, 2007


jayder, I suspect you were kidding, but just in case: my point is that anyone who thinks they're making the first argument, is probably really making the second.

Indie wedding ≠ cheap

one person's opinion about what people spend on weddings ≠ prevailing norms

the need to rub one's prevailing norms on people ≠ good AskMe answer
posted by pineapple at 3:40 PM on September 6, 2007


I think jayder was being sarcastic, Burhanistan.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:37 PM on September 6


There was at least one deleted comment (linked to in "shame" by Mitheral above I think) which said exactly the same thing.
posted by vacapinta at 3:41 PM on September 6, 2007


Yes, I was being sarcastic!
posted by jayder at 3:46 PM on September 6, 2007


Just answer the fucking question with a minimum of fuss, that's the point of that part of metafilter, prove up and show you can do something properly for once in your lives, some of you motherfuckers pass judgment like it pays cash money.

I have an opinion about people who pay 20 grand for a wedding and then whinge about the DJ skeezing a three course shitty filet and shrimp cocktail dinner, but nobody asked me, did they?
posted by Divine_Wino at 3:52 PM on September 6, 2007


What is your opinion?
posted by found missing at 3:57 PM on September 6, 2007


Metafilter: You motherfuckers pass judgment like it pays cash money
posted by psmealey at 3:58 PM on September 6, 2007 [6 favorites]


For the record we have no idea how much the OP spent on the wedding. All we know is the dinner at the reception, at which they had a DJ, went for $140 a plate. The OP could have 30 people at the reception and still spent less overall than some of us spent on the computers we're using to surf this site.
posted by Mitheral at 3:59 PM on September 6, 2007


I got married in a rolled up newspaper.

Personally, my favorite marriage venue is a passing turk's slipper
posted by Deathalicious at 4:06 PM on September 6, 2007


For the record we have no idea how much the OP spent on the wedding.

Well, we know how much he spent on the DJ at least:

we would deduct the cost of the vendor meal (since he took both meals), along with the gratuity (since we didn't like being yelled at by his boss). The total amount we were deducting was less than 5% of the total fee for the DJ.

(25+50) < 5% * x
75 < 0.05x
$1500 < x

He spent at least $1500 on the DJ. I'm going to assume, then, that the entire wedding was, at least, in th $10k range.
posted by Deathalicious at 4:17 PM on September 6, 2007


That should have been "saying the poster is engaged in nickel and diming jackassery", my html got messed up.

Well, thank Christ you got that sorted out. I couldn't stand the thought of having been deprived of that nugget of wit, and will steal it at the earliest opportunity.

By the way, when I get married, I'm pulling out the stops. That's right, the party barrel of Kentucky Fried Chicken, not the bucket. And, oh, what the hell, THREE salads.
posted by evilcolonel at 4:24 PM on September 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


(accidentally eponysterical)
posted by evilcolonel at 4:25 PM on September 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


On a side note to this side thread, I freakin hate people that RSVP and don't show up (the person that the $140 dinner was intended for).
posted by spec80 at 4:32 PM on September 6, 2007


Moral of the story: weddings are pretty stupid.
posted by Avenger at 5:11 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


Mitheral : I'd like to see that for any conventional definition of wedding. Heck in BC the license and officiant is more than $140.

My wedding cost less. We were married by a judge at the courthouse; wedding itself cost $50 and I believe we gave him a $20 tip. Though the dinner for the five people who attended might have driven the cost slightly over $140, it wouldn't have been by too much.
posted by quin at 5:17 PM on September 6, 2007


And the only thing I would consider unconventional about it is that we decided to tie the knot on October 31. I'm terrible at remembering dates and we figured that Halloween is as good a day as any. So now when I see lots of plastic rotting body parts starting to show up in stores, I know it's getting close to my anniversary.
posted by quin at 5:20 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


Didn't realise marriage licences are so cheap in the states (as little as $4, that wouldn't cover the cost of printing it out and mailing it). They are $100 in BC + $80 for the commissioner.
posted by Mitheral at 5:40 PM on September 6, 2007


For all we know, the bride's father is a fantabulously wealthy businessman who hosted the entire shebang, demanding "the best" of everything, but made the couple pay for their own DJ out of spite because he wanted them to get the London Symphony Orchestra instead.
posted by xo at 5:40 PM on September 6, 2007


The new wedding hotness is buying your DJ a special $500 surf'n'turf dinner, which he or she will eat at a rotating table mocked up to look like a giant turntable. An All 4 One song will be looped during the DJ's meal and he or she will have choice of either the garter belt or the bouquet.
posted by mullacc at 5:42 PM on September 6, 2007


God, reading that question and some of the responses made me even more misanthropic than usual. It's not about rich or poor or lavish weddings versus granola on the beach but about the chiseling, miserly fretting about an employee eating a meal that was going to waste anyway (or at least paid for.) In essence, he was annoyed that the guy took the cheap meal home. He comes back from his honeymoon and this is what he's thinking about? Christ.
When he said "am I in the wrong?" I would suggest he invited some pretty sharp responses. I'm stunned so many people took him seriously.
posted by CunningLinguist at 5:43 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


I had people RSVP and then not show up and even make statements like, "Well, you were self-catering, so it's not like it's a big deal." Yeah, it's all free when you self-cater, right? The linens, the cutlery, the plates, the food. It's all free. (That being said, I can understand that people run into last-minute problems. But please don't beg off by saying it's not like I was paying $140/head. Time and money went into the meal.)
posted by acoutu at 5:52 PM on September 6, 2007


I don't get why a lot of people talk about how their wedding was so cheap. When did having an inexpensive wedding become something to show off? Is it to make those of us who enjoy the big parties feel bad?

It's like someone said something about buying a new car and everyone showed up to say "you're so stupid, I ride a used bike I found on a flea market!".
posted by CrazyLemonade at 5:54 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


CrazyLemonade: subconscious fear of divorce
posted by Burhanistan at 5:55 PM on September 6, 2007


You must be new here, CrazyLemonade.
posted by mullacc at 5:55 PM on September 6, 2007


I had a small wedding followed by dinner only. 35 people. And then we threw a party a few weeks later at a bar and invited everybody else we knew. And the two together are by far the most we've ever spent on a party. But what the hell. It's only money, right? And we had a great time. And everybody that was there had a great time. Big parties are awesome, and you have a lot of great memories from them.

You can spend as little as you want on your wedding. That's your perogative. But don't try telling other people they spent too much. It's none of your business. (Unless they ask you, of course)
posted by Roger Dodger at 6:03 PM on September 6, 2007


The real trick is spending an unusual amount on a wedding. There are places where every wedding is in a church basement and the food is potluck. Not that difficult to just do the status quo.
posted by smackfu at 6:15 PM on September 6, 2007


You wanna know about mean?

I know a guy, got married on a Saturday and didn't have a wedding party, but wanted him and his new bride to go out to the night club that he generally went to on a Saturday night.

That's not the mean part though. The mean part was that he bought his *own* ecstasy and cocaine, but didn't buy any for his new wife. She was expected to make her own arrangements.

Needless to say, they aren't married any longer.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:27 PM on September 6, 2007


Y'all are overthinking a plate of banns.
posted by YamwotIam at 6:45 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


Question, and I come at this from the perspective of someone who thinks spending money on a big party is normal but doesn't have a totally perfect handle on things like this whole subprime fracas,

how is this any different from if the OP had said, "I was buying this $30,000 car, and when I got home I realized the dealer had put on the $200 cup-holder-liners...


This case doesn't include anything extra. The DJ kept the meal that he was originally going to get, which had been budgeted for. The only thing that was different was that he also ate a meal that was originally meant to go to a guest, but that guest didn't show up.

If the DJ had behaved in the absolutely most robotically ideal manner, the cost would have been exactly the same. The only difference would have been that the meal for the no-show guy would have been thrown out.

If the DJ had behaved in the most thoughtfully 'saving-money-for-the-host manner', he could have eaten the extra meal, and then refused the second tier meal that was intended for him. That would have saved the guy like $25 (so we're not talking $200). However, there's no reason to believe he'd have known that was refundable, or that it would have been considered a noticeable cost. But most important, why would it have been his duty to try to save money for the host?
posted by mdn at 6:48 PM on September 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


The guy is a cheap, fucking loser.

Of course I was a hell of a lot nicer when I answered the question, but it still got deleted.
posted by tejolote at 6:49 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


I see douche-baggage on both sides of the dinner plate. Stealing food from an employer is low-class and bad for business. Begrudging food at your own wedding party kind of defeats the purpose. Rampant douche-baggage.
posted by RussHy at 6:49 PM on September 6, 2007


posted by tejolote

Nice way to make yourself known around here, sir.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:51 PM on September 6, 2007


I don't get why a lot of people talk about how their wedding was so cheap. When did having an inexpensive wedding become something to show off?

Because in my mind, a big, ostentatious wedding serves no purpose. The idea is that it's supposed to be a special, perfect day. But because everyone is stressed out trying to ensure it's perfect, it can never be. It's a self-failing system.

I mean, are people who spend $30k on a wedding more married than someone who spends $1000? I feel the same way about engagement rings, why dump all that money on a useless rock? Instead, take whatever you were planning on spending for a wedding and ring, and take a long honeymoon to someplace spectacular. Or use it as the down-payment on a house, or something.
posted by quin at 6:52 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


But because everyone is stressed out trying to ensure it's perfect, it can never be. It's a self-failing system.

Interesting. Where do you get your information; Steve Martin movies?
posted by found missing at 6:56 PM on September 6, 2007 [4 favorites]


For some people $30k ain't that much to drop.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:58 PM on September 6, 2007


God, reading that question and some of the responses made me even more misanthropic than usual. It's not about rich or poor or lavish weddings versus granola on the beach but about the chiseling, miserly fretting about an employee eating a meal that was going to waste anyway (or at least paid for.)

Cunning Linguist said it perfectly.
posted by tejolote at 7:01 PM on September 6, 2007


Because in my mind, a big, ostentatious wedding serves no purpose.

Well! God forbid anyone chose to live their life differently than you do!

I mean, are people who spend $30k on a wedding more married than someone who spends $1000? I feel the same way about engagement rings, why dump all that money on a useless rock?

It's this kind of shitty, condescending attitude that makes Mefi the pits sometime. Who cares how much other people spend on stuff? It ain't your fucking money!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:15 PM on September 6, 2007 [5 favorites]


Amen, sister. Those bastards never cared about anything anyways.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:16 PM on September 6, 2007


Some of y'all must just get so angry when you see a marina. All those expensive boats, purely for recreational purposes! It's crazy.
posted by smackfu at 7:22 PM on September 6, 2007 [4 favorites]


This case doesn't include anything extra. The DJ kept the meal that he was originally going to get, which had been budgeted for. The only thing that was different was that he also ate a meal that was originally meant to go to a guest, but that guest didn't show up.

...That would have saved the guy like $25 (so we're not talking $200).
...But most important, why would it have been his duty to try to save money for the host?


Fair point, but a distraction from my original question.

Is your issue that the OP shouldn't have tried to get his vendor to do what was expected because

1) the sum X% of Y is too niggling to hassle over, or

2) the sum X isn't worth hassling over because you think the item wasn't of a social value you personally find redeeming?

Either argument is going to be pretty hard to rationalize, to my mind.
posted by pineapple at 8:02 PM on September 6, 2007


All those expensive boats, purely for recreational purposes! It's crazy.

Especially when the boats have just been sitting out there for a year while the Republican Rotary-club owners are just using their cabins as a place to discreetly fuck their prostitute-in-all-but-name "mistresses" away from the wife's prying eyes.

Metafilter: y'all must just get so angry....

yes! thats what makes us great!
posted by Avenger at 8:04 PM on September 6, 2007


Obviously, people waste shitloads of money on weddings. That's just tacky! People these days! No class whatsoever. They wanna get everyone together, feed them and entertain them, just because they wanna share their happiness? No. Not allowed. TACKY!!!!!!!!!!!

Now let me tell ya, when I get married, I'm going to have Emmit Otter's Jug-band as entertainment, our food is going to be Handi-Snacks, and all my invitations are going to be in Comic Sans. Now that's class.
posted by Verdandi at 8:42 PM on September 6, 2007


They want us to pay for the beer we drank, so you guys better split. The next gig is gonna be dynamite.

Huge.

You'll see.
posted by flabdablet at 8:44 PM on September 6, 2007


quin writes "feel the same way about engagement rings, why dump all that money on a useless rock? Instead, take whatever you were planning on spending for a wedding and ring, and take a long honeymoon to someplace spectacular."

I'm not pro or anti rings or vacations but how exactly is a vacation "useful" where a ring isn't?
posted by Mitheral at 8:45 PM on September 6, 2007


What bothers me most about this thread is not just that people suggest or state that the guy is cheap, that his wedding cost a lot or too much etc., but the way people seem to see a need to assert these opinions again and again. It's obnoxious. People, please read the entire thread before answering questions and make sure someone hasn't just said exactly what you're about to say.

I had a similar experience myself recently with a thread in which I asked for comebacks for a friend of mine who often gets certain "Gee, I've never met a Mennonite before" questions. People assumed she needed a lecture on how to treat strangers who ask dumb but innocently meant questions. Yes, sometimes in AskMe we need to question or address matters not contained in the original question. But if we make a thread all about these (often in the event condescending and out of line) assumptions and value judgments instead of answering the actual question, we've lost the sense of what AskMe is for.

My friend was very angry and I was very irritated. I did put a stop to the lectures by telling people that we were only interested in hearing witty rejoinders, and I flagged the comments I thought were out of line, but they didn't get removed. Apparently "Christ, what an asshole" was considered to be a fitting answer to a request for witty comments re: Mennonite related questions about making jam.
posted by orange swan at 9:00 PM on September 6, 2007 [1 favorite]


I don't get why a lot of people talk about how their wedding was so cheap. When did having an inexpensive wedding become something to show off? Is it to make those of us who enjoy the big parties feel bad?

I think there's a specific anti-American snobbery at work here.

If it were revealed to be a custom in an exotic, non-American culture to spend, say, half a year's salary on a wedding, this factoid would cause the average liberal MeFite's tolerant, cosmopolitan, NPR-listening gene to kick in, and the wedding would be treated as a delightful and quaint custom, worthy of respect and preservation, and there would be much clucking about how wonderful it is that the extravagant wedding celebration reflects a refreshingly open, celebratory, communitarian ethos.

If it were revealed that an American spent, say, half a year's salary on a wedding, this factoid would cause the average liberal MeFite's anti-Hummer, anti-suburban, anti-conspicuous consumption gene to kick in, and the American would be showered with righteous scorn about this person's selfish individualism, their loathsome consumerism, and we would be treated to a proud comparison of how little the liberal MeFite spent on their own "indie" wedding.
posted by jayder at 9:02 PM on September 6, 2007 [4 favorites]


Funny this question came up. This vendor ate a few trays of hors'd oeuvres at my wedding and I am trying to decide whether to take it from her pay. She denies it. My contract stipulated she could only eat cake. It's a conundrum.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:04 PM on September 6, 2007 [2 favorites]


keep your $140 dinner, just gimme the cash.
posted by bruce at 9:15 PM on September 6, 2007


i don't care what the food at your wedding was, or who the dj was

at your divorce, the food's going to be ritz crackers and tuna fish with fried baloney sandwiches

and the dj's going to play george jones' "he stopped loving her today" over and over and over ...
posted by pyramid termite at 9:29 PM on September 6, 2007


For what it's worth, I side with the OP. He seems to be pretty professional and organized - probably a manager in real life. Many of the comments in the thread were borderline assholish, and seemed to be made by people who did not appreciate the value of the dollar, or seem to be not at all concerned that the OP was ripped off by the DJ, and treated shabbily by the vendor. What some people call cheap others call attention to detail and an expectation of fairness and professionalism.

So, it would have been better if these folks had refrained from posting on that thread.
posted by KokuRyu at 9:38 PM on September 6, 2007


something just occurred to me - he sounds like a man who someone has disagreed with over this

bet you anything his wife has told him that it's not worth it and he wants another opinion

here - it's not worth it
posted by pyramid termite at 9:43 PM on September 6, 2007


ThePinkSuperhero : It's this kind of shitty, condescending attitude that makes Mefi the pits sometime. Who cares how much other people spend on stuff? It ain't your fucking money!

Sorry 'bout that. It's a sensitive subject for me, I watched a dear friend spend a good chunk of change on a wedding for a marriage that didn't work out. He's still paying it off. And in my defense, I did use the passive-aggressive "in my mind" disclaimer; I'm not dictating policy, I'm just trying to get people to understand that they can get hitched without going into years worth of debt, (seriously. I have a co-worker who just started planning a wedding, I suggested that they elope and save the cash. The idea had never occurred to them, they just figured that spending a ton of money is what you did.)

Mitheral : I'm not pro or anti rings or vacations but how exactly is a vacation "useful" where a ring isn't?

I am currently waging a one man war against De Beers, so anything I can say that will take money from them, I call a win. Plus, c'mon, it's a rock. It doesn't do anything. A vacation is an experience. I'm willing to agree to disagree on this one, but I know which one I think is more valuable.

found missing : Interesting. Where do you get your information; Steve Martin movies?

::blinks::

Yes. Is there another definitive source on this kind of thing that you can cite? Dirty Rotten Scoundrels changed my life.
posted by quin at 9:46 PM on September 6, 2007


If the OP did not want folks opinions the question should not have been posted in the fashion it was. As it was posted the OP asked a question regarding opinions on his reaction and consequently got answers across the spectrum, and again consequently led to this metawank.
posted by iamabot at 10:04 PM on September 6, 2007


The attitude probably could have been toned down, but sometimes the more correct answer to the question is to argue that the assumptions on which the question are based are flawed.
posted by troybob at 10:05 PM on September 6, 2007


He's got every right to ask it, and is essentially asking if he's being a cheap jerk.

Cute, but no he's not. He's in a dispute and wants to know if he has solid grounds to resist collections.
posted by scarabic at 11:55 PM on September 6, 2007


If people are still really confused about it, and they want to know exactly what it looks like when someone thinks the OP was being cheap and petty but doesn't want to savage them publically for it, they can read my answer in the original thread.

But how is saying so here on the grey any different than doing it there on the green? If ikkyu2 - or whoever - saying "Man, you're a cheap, nickel-and-diming bastard - straighten up and fly right, you jackass" is supposed to be offensive to the poster, what is this metatalk thread supposed to do? Do you really think old elbaso won't read this, just because it's on the grey?

I tend to think people who come to AskMe with a question like this deserve what they get; and what they get is going to be nasty. If the nasty stuff wasn't deleted, there'd be a lot of nasty stuff there that'd make the poor OP cry. People would probably compete to make the OP cry, that's how nasty and crappy some people are. This sucks and probably isn't useful to the poster. So it's deleted.

Because it's deleted, we have a place, Metatalk where we can talk about what was deleted - and, incidentally, make sure that the guy hears about it anyway. If we didn't have that, some jackass would set up an unauthorized sister site, not under MeFi moderation, where people could say what they really thought, and then other jackasses would make sure that the original poster found out about it somehow. End result: the poster winds up reading something that makes him feel bad about himself.

The problem is not that people are being rude. They are, but that's not fixable. The problem is that random strangers on the internet are not the best source of answers to this kind of question. Why our mods expend such prodigious energy in a completely vain effort to safeguard MeFi readers from this truth continues to baffle me.
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:25 AM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]


When I take into account the atmosphere and context of a wedding reception, the whole thing makes no sense at all. Everyone's a little tipsy and emotional and flirty and depressed, all while wearing fancy uncomfortable clothes. The last wedding I attended, The maid of honor made a toast that was so heartfelt and touching that even the bartenders were in tears and joining in group hugs at the end. And then there's people like my mother, who make it their duty to include everyone. After two glasses of wine she's insisting that "we're all family here" and dragging the limo driver into family pictures. Inevitably you're looking at the photos years later trying to figure out who's that Russian fellow with his hand on Aunt Jean's butt.

Which is my way of saying The Surf N ' Turf may be pricey, but the Electric Slide is always free.
posted by billyfleetwood at 1:26 AM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


I tend to think people who come to AskMe with a question like this deserve what they get

Oh, great, that way we can ensure that everyone who asks a question gets yelled at for not adhering to the specific "fuck your money, man, I had a wedding on top of a bed of broken glass, you materialist fucko" attitude that is so prevailing around here. Sounds great. We can intimidate everyone else from asking questions, completely devaluing the very thing that is awesome about the green, because some people can't seem to fucking handle that other people have more money than they do and want to spend it differently.
posted by mckenney at 6:05 AM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]


If it were revealed to be a custom in an exotic, non-American culture to spend, say, half a year's salary on a wedding, this factoid would cause the average liberal MeFite's tolerant, cosmopolitan, NPR-listening gene to kick in...

MeFi, meet Chinese wedding banquet.

I'm just trying to get people to understand that they can get hitched without going into years worth of debt, (seriously. I have a co-worker who just started planning a wedding, I suggested that they elope and save the cash. The idea had never occurred to them, they just figured that spending a ton of money is what you did.)

Spending a "ton of money" ≠ going into debt; a couple can easily choose not to incur wedding debt while still hosting an event that doesn't involve an alley and plastic bags and Handi-Snacks. How do you know your co-worker isn't intending to live frugally and save for a year?

I am currently waging a one man war against De Beers, so anything I can say that will take money from them, I call a win.

Engagement ring ≠ DeBeers diamond. Many people have non-diamond rings, including me.

I just want the record to show that the spectrum between [extravagant Bridezilla event driven by conspicuous consumption, complete with band, surf-n-turf, chocolate truffles in handpainted boxes at each place setting, and cigars rolled on-site on the thighs of illegally imported Cuban virgins] and [married inside a rolled-up newspaper] is wide.

I can't get too up in arms that overall, MeFi is judgy about weddings vs anything else we're judgy about (and jayder is on to something, I bet the wedding hardon is our liberal anti-American bourgeoisie bent showing). But it's so frustrating that there are so many black-and-white generalizations made -- that it's got to be either a huge, commercial, spendthrift, tacky affair, or it's a hippie prole potluck.
posted by pineapple at 6:26 AM on September 7, 2007


And all this time, I thought DJ's subsisted entirely on humble pie and bitter fruit.
posted by malocchio at 10:46 AM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


He'd have gotten a much better general response if he's just made sure to let everyone know the DJ was morbidly obese right from the beginning.
posted by IronLizard at 10:55 AM on September 7, 2007


The more I thought about this last night, the more sympathetic I became to the OP. He made provisions to get the staff at his wedding fed, but he didn't want to pay $140 a head to do it. That is completely reasonable. The frikkin' DJ crashed one of the dining tables and then took his other food home for later? What a jackass. I don't know if I would ever be in this OP's situation, but saying he deserves to have people be nasty to him is ridiculous, ikkyu2. Your grump is hanging out, there, bud.
posted by scarabic at 11:14 AM on September 7, 2007


"Man, you're a cheap, nickel-and-diming bastard - straighten up and fly right, you jackass" is supposed to be offensive to the poster, what is this metatalk thread supposed to do? Do you really think old elbaso won't read this, just because it's on the grey?

But this is also the place where we disagree that he is a cheap, nickel and diming bastard. He can see what some people think but also that there is not a consensus.

If I had been in his situation, I would have let it go. But I can also understand and sympathize with him. It may not be about the money at all, despite everyone's calculations above. Some people are more sensitive to feeling that others have taken advantage of them, regardless of what it actually cost them in monetary costs.
posted by vacapinta at 11:23 AM on September 7, 2007


Fair point, but a distraction from my original question.

...uh, well, then your original question was a distraction from my original point.

Is your issue that the OP shouldn't have tried to get his vendor to do what was expected because

1) the sum X% of Y is too niggling to hassle over, or

2) the sum X isn't worth hassling over because you think the item wasn't of a social value you personally find redeeming?


are you saying, in a case where the DJ actually finegled himself a meal that otherwise would have been refunded? In such a case I would consider both parties to be in the wrong. If I found myself in a similar situation, my answer would be to let the money go, but to not recommend the person to others looking to hire such services. I'd keep up my original contracts, and would not retract tips already given, but wouldn't call him again. (Of course, I can't imagine having a wedding party with a random DJ as the music, but, anyway...).

But really, I do think the context of cost makes a difference; it's obvious that when a person is throwing an enormous party, they can afford to feed the people there, and they have to accept that they are magnanimous for the moment. If they think of the party in terms of how much each glass of wine is costing, then they ruin the entire event, for themselves and for their guests. The money is gone, once you decide you are doing this thing. If you're going to have a $30,000 party, then just fucking have a $30,000 party.

I'm sure people will say I'm naive, and if you're not careful it will turn into a $40,000 party, and you can't let people take advantage, and yadda yadda, but it seems to me that you can be reasonable about these things, organize with a "cushion" on the budget, and simply accept that the whole point of having a party is letting people "take advantage" of you. You're being generous for the night. Sure, the employees are meant to be working, not enjoying, but unless they fuck up their jobs, it's not that big a deal. It was definitely within potential cost expectation (even if it might have been refunded, they expected to have that meal available for some reason)

I'm not pro or anti rings or vacations but how exactly is a vacation "useful" where a ring isn't?

Well, I think one can argue that a vacation is an experience, while a ring is a just an artifact. You can learn and grow and change through the things you do in traveling, whereas a ring just sits on a finger.

Of course, if one simply goes to a beach on a vacation and sunbathes and drinks cocktails, then perhaps the vacation is meaningless, and if one considers the ring a powerful symbol of the bond of true love and a constant reminder of personal moments of connection, then the ring could be given more importance.

Also, the wedding itself is an experience, so if we give travel more points for changing our lives, we should consider whether the experience of the wedding itself can do that, too, and whether the huge party can be worth all that fanfare to produce that experience.

If it were revealed to be a custom in an exotic, non-American culture to spend, say, half a year's salary on a wedding...there would be much clucking about how wonderful it is that the extravagant wedding celebration reflects a refreshingly open, celebratory, communitarian ethos.

If it were revealed that an American spent, say, half a year's salary on a wedding...the American would be showered with righteous scorn about this person's selfish individualism, their loathsome consumerism


I think this is the truly important point. For what reason do we spend the money?

If it is for that celebration, community, to become generous at this most joyful of occasions, to share our own overflowing happiness with so many others whom we love, to really create a spectacular experience in order to celebrate the union of these two people, that is one thing.

If it is to show off how much better you look in this dress than someone else, or how much nicer this hall is than that one, or if it is generally to show that you can spend this money because you are rich and powerful, or if it is to match a fairy tale ideal of a "wedding" without any real sense of the actual wedding between the two people involved, that's another.

That is, if you are spending the money because one spends money on weddings, and because one wants certain things, simply because we've been taught to want them, but not to express the joy of getting married, then we've lost the whole point of doing it.

Basically, do you think the exotic non-American host guy would chase down an attendee the next day to straighten out some unexpected difference in the tab?
posted by mdn at 11:44 AM on September 7, 2007


Why our mods expend such prodigious energy in a completely vain effort to safeguard MeFi readers from this truth continues to baffle me.

I don't think you understand what we do or why we do it.

But I was married at a drive-thru, so what do I know?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:19 PM on September 7, 2007 [2 favorites]


mdn, I don't know if you meant it, but that whole post came off as pious and judgmental. It must be nice that you and you alone can interpret the very best use of anyone's $30,000 party budget, vacation time, gift of jewelry, and wedding motives. I'll be sure to check in with you the next time I plan to spend money on anything, to make sure that I'm framing my feelings and agenda appropriately. Especially my vacation, which God forbid I should spend relaxing on the beach with my spouse or friends or family, or having a cocktail, or sunbathing -- all of which I now know are not actual "experiences." I'll just start saving my pennies for an account at www.SpendYourHolidayWorkingtoBuildShacksInaThirdWorldCountryOrBeJudgedAsALazyInauthenticPig.com.

While you didn't directly respond with "answer 1" or "answer 2", you managed to both castigate the OP as a cheapskate ("If you're going to have a $30,000 party, then just fucking have a $30,000 party." "do you think the exotic non-American host guy would chase down an attendee the next day to straighten out some unexpected difference in the tab?") and also to point out how blatantly consumer and socially inappropriate you feel a big wedding to be.

So, nice work -- I'll assume that your answer is "both."

I'm sure people will say I'm naive...

Yeah, pretty much. I'm assuming that everyone in these threads with the attitude of "your vendor should get to do whatever he wants or else you are a stingy fucking cheapskate" is naive. Or a billionaire. Or never throws any parties, ever. If every single time one ever hired a person to help one entertain, it was acceptable for that person to just help themselves however they saw fit, because "expecting the performance and behavior that was contracted" = "the host is a cheapskate dick," I'd quit my job and go into DJing. Or wedding photography. Or bartending. Because I clearly don't have to treat them like a "real" client the way I would if I were in a professional role like an attorney or doctor or accountant.

Come to think of it, it's sort of blue-collar-ist that everyone seems to be crying that the poor DJ needs to be fed, because he's so poor, and it's okay to steal food, and what's the big deal, and food is not a valuable commodity like actual money (try telling that to the caterer), so give the poor thieving hungry orphaned DJ a break, guv.

simply accept that the whole point of having a party is letting people your invited guests "take advantage" of you. You're being generous for the night.

Fixed that for you.

p.s. I also think you're provincial for that comment that an "exotic non-American" couldn't possibly have the issue as the OP. It would be hysterical if elbaso turned out to not actually be Whitey Anglo Cheapskate Consumer like you assumed, wouldn't it? The idea that Americans are the materialistic assholes and everyone else everywhere else is exotic and kind and generous just means you need to get out more. Try one of those non-cocktail, non-sunbathing Vacations With a Purpose.
posted by pineapple at 12:22 PM on September 7, 2007 [3 favorites]


But I was married at a drive-thru, so what do I know?

"You may kiss the bride. Would you like fries with that?"
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:24 PM on September 7, 2007

He'd have gotten a much better general response if he's just made sure to let everyone know the DJ was morbidly obese right from the beginning.
HURF DURF! $140 DINNER EATER!
posted by essexjan at 12:39 PM on September 7, 2007


Please, lets not ruin this guy's memories of his wedding by overdiscussing it.
posted by Xere at 12:47 PM on September 7, 2007


Scarabic, man, I feel sorry for the guy. I don't think he deserves to have people be nasty to him because of the content of his question or because of what he did at his wedding. In fact, I don't think anyone "deserves" nastiness at all.

But when a guy posts something like this, people are going to be nasty at him. Nasty is what they're going to get. If they don't do it on the green, they'll do it on the grey, or they'll email him directly if he posts his address, or whatever it takes.

Really mean stuff - stuff that would make me cry if I were the original poster "elbaso" - is sitting up there right now in this thread. And the poor guy has what appears to be his real name in his profile - let's pass over for a moment that his last name is practically synonymous with the virtues of hospitality and munificence. He's really hung out to dry.

How did deleting a couple of comments on the green mitigate this disaster in the least bit?
posted by ikkyu2 at 12:47 PM on September 7, 2007


How did deleting a couple of comments on the green mitigate this disaster in the least bit?

The only solution, then, is to shut down metatalk.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:18 PM on September 7, 2007


Heck in BC the license and officiant is more than $140.

And unnecessary to be married.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:29 PM on September 7, 2007


How did deleting a couple of comments on the green mitigate this disaster in the least bit?

My point is we don't remove comments calling the question asker an asshole so they don't hear someone calling them an asshole. We do it so that AskMe remains useful.

MeTa has way lower readership than the rest of the site so there is actually a good chance the OP won't come here and read this thread. The OP can also opt to know about this thread and not read it, if he's the sensitive crying type, or maybe the quick to anger type. He cannot as easily opt to not read the rest of the answers to his question in the AskMe thread, or we don't want him to have to, in this case.

My feeling is if you start telling your stories on the Internet someone will come along and call you an asshole for it, or for no reason whatsoever. I can't change that, and I feel like most people on the Internet know that. I can keep that sort of thing out of AskMe however so that people can get their question answered without feeling attacked and so that other people feel okay about asking their questions in the future.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:32 PM on September 7, 2007 [1 favorite]


I see neither the ubiquity of nastiness nor the inevitability of it in this case that you do, ikkyu2. Not sure how else to say it.

1 I tend to think people who come to AskMe with a question like this deserve what they get; and what they get is going to be nasty.


2 I don't think he deserves to have people be nasty to him


You're not making a whole lot of sense, really. You also sound a little world-weary with this whole MetaFilter thing. Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?
posted by scarabic at 1:59 PM on September 7, 2007


You're making a whole lot of sense, really.

Glad you recognize that, man. But you amputated my dependent clause! Don't you realize that amputation means removal of a body part, like Ashley's breasts?

I have way too much free time lately. You want to go out and get a beer?
posted by ikkyu2 at 2:20 PM on September 7, 2007


Has anybody stopped to consider the OP could actually be the DJ trying to figure out if he should reimburse the extra dinner he ate?
posted by micayetoca at 5:05 PM on September 7, 2007


You sank my battleship avulsed my adverb!

Happy to bitch about it over beers. You know how to reach me.
posted by scarabic at 9:45 PM on September 7, 2007


Round two, fight!
posted by smackfu at 8:41 AM on September 8, 2007


I think this is the truly important point. For what reason do we spend the money?

Is it really? If it isn't my money, should I really give a damn how it's spent? Compared to someone living in the third world, pretty much all of MeFi lives extravagantly, so it's ultimately kind of petty, no matter matter how much of a rush of pseudo-righteous indignation we might get.
posted by jonmc at 4:47 PM on September 8, 2007 [2 favorites]


mdn, I don't know if you meant it, but that whole post came off as pious and judgmental.

it's ultimately kind of petty, no matter matter how much of a rush of pseudo-righteous indignation we might get.


I didn't post my original response to this stuff because it felt like it got a bit too detailed & silly, but now that a few people have agreed with the sentiment, I wanted to just say something general to try to explain what I thought I was getting at.

First off, sincere apologies for offending you. Of course you can do whatever you like with your money & at the end of the day it makes no real difference to me.

Second, if you think I'm judgmental or indignant or otherwise looking down on people, you misunderstand me. I made a point about how we spend our money because i think we often rush through life spending money the way we watch crappy TV, not because we truly want to, but because "it's what's on", because it's just kind of what one does, how things go, and we don't make the choice actively or with purpose, but just sort of go along with the general tide of things, and do not gain from it what we could if we really took seriously the idea that we were spending that money, if we undertook it as a personally meaningful act that we actually want to follow through on...

anyway, I won't go on about it - I didn't mean to offend, nor to exclude myself from the group, nor to determine which acts do or don't fall into the category of consciously meaningful - my whole point was that you could argue different things for different cases, it's just that we don't think about the meaning of a lot of our consumption these days, which, in my opinion, is too bad. But as you've all pointed out, it's just my opinion
posted by mdn at 6:49 PM on September 8, 2007


Compared to someone living in the third world, pretty much all of MeFi lives extravagantly

Thank you. Good point.

And then there's your last comment, mdn. Despite your (again?) pious effort to educate all of us on the way we spend money and the values behind it all, there are simply far too many "we" statements in your last comment. If you have something to say about your life with blowing cash, say it. Don't speak for all of us at a stretch to excuse your being judgmental toward someone you don't know.
posted by scarabic at 10:42 PM on September 8, 2007


right. well, I appreciate your letting me know how it came across, and again I apologize for sounding judgmental. I mean, I guess I'm kinda anti-consumerist but I don't think of that as a failure of individuals, I think of it as more like a tragedy of modern life & all that. So you can disagree that it's a downside of the modern world, but I still find it weird that anyone's taking it personally when the point I'm trying to make is that it's not personal, it's cultural... but clearly I'm not expressing myself very well & am coming off in all the wrong ways - so I really will leave it alone now.
posted by mdn at 10:29 AM on September 9, 2007


« Older It just seems wrong somehow.   |   ZBS Podcasts Update Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments