Banned. Should I gatecrash?

‘respectfully rescind’ – gold!

LOL!
Firstly it should read, “Owing to the article…”

Secondly, how can they get grammar on and invitation wrong?

Thirdly the demonstration of poor attention to detail in the above two items suggests this will be reflected throughout the operation.

Finally, I think you have already reaped revenging posting here. Oh and in that column you do in the age. Oh and perhaps a business article on how sour grapes is not the way to overcome bad business practices!!!

This is very funny indeed. I guess that’s why so many reviewers remain anonymous.

I wouldn’t bother gatecrashing … you’ve done all the good work by publishing Mr van Staden’s charming email here!

Stand by for the next missive!

Rock up with that party kid, Corey & his posse then insist that he be in charge of their PR from now on!

See people DO read blogs Ed!

Ouch!

Thats funny.

I too don’t pick on spelling and grammatical mistakes too much as I make heaps of them myself. But when it is in an official invite, they should really double check it.

I’m going to get my comment picked to parts, but Grocer, when I read your comment

“Secondly, how can they get grammar on and invitation wrong?”

I noticed that you wrote and instead of an.

too funny.
Too too funny.

Don’t go, this is good enough.

Whatever happened to the maxim, all PR is good PR, especially the negative to inspire curiosity?

It’s a poor case of damage control manifesting as sour grapes. Sounds like they need me to do their Marketing and Public Relations.

Seems I’m going to be the odd-voice-out here. While the disinvitation might be bad PR, I can’t say I’m surprised at the desire to strike back in some way. Ed, your ‘review’ was almost without informative content. By dwelling on the urinal stuff you generated a very negative image which wasn’t supported by the rest of your (briefly relevant) text. To me it looks like a gratuitously cheap shot and exactly the sort of thing that makes the food industry sneer at foodbloggers. To call it a review would be pushing things, wouldn’t it?

Well put Duncan! Ed, your ‘review’ reminded me of AA Gill’s restaurant reviews. Too much time spent trying to be funny, and not enough actually talking about the food. If its primary purpose is as a place to drink after work, you could have written about their drinks list. And what’s with the ‘date rape drug’ joke? Do you really think that’s funny?

Thanks Blair. Yes, Ed, I think a review should be *primarily* about the food if it’s a restaurant you’re ‘reviewing’. But that notwithstanding, if you are ‘reviewing’ then it requires more than lightweight Gill-esque snideness. I don’t think you told it like it is; I think you had fun putting together text which is fairly uninformative and gives few readers much idea what to expect. The urinal meme, the fictional office workers (including stupid date rape stuff), the breasts… that’s not a review. Cheap shot? Dumping on a place without actually writing about it properly. The place might be crap, I don’t know… but I had no confidence that your ‘review’ was a reliable depiction. If someone did an equally unflattering but unelaborated description of, say, a blogger’s site, you’d be rallying the troops in outrage.

I read this very entertaining post with much interest especially since you were quite strong with your criticisms & witticisms. Firstly, good on you for posting what you thought when so many out there are too timid to step out from the shadows.
I was a bit anxious for you though at the same time because you have clearly drawn a line in the sand & it will be difficult for that restaurant to get over this. Perhaps this is a clear step toward bona fide restaurant reviewing, you have to piss someone off before you are taken seriously? In this instance the comparisons to AA Gill are on the money.
Secondly, as to the point of the blog, it’s yours isn’t it? I didn’t know that your posts were always about forensically detailed restaurant analysis; I read it because it’s interesting & often humorous.
Finally nothing gets the comment section buzzing like a good old posting that razzes everyone up & although it can sometimes get a bit nasty, it’s what blogging is all about.
Keep it up Ed, it’s your opinion & you have a right to express it as you see fit.

On a personal level, I like:
Ed’s writing voice
Ed’s Sense of Humour (all wit needs to be taken with a grain of salt)
Ed’s lack of timidity in his posts
Lateral thinking that draws abstract yet effective parallels
That Ed does his homework before writing

I find blogs are an interesting insight into people’s observations. They are entertaining. But until I have experienced the same, I reserve my judgement. After all it is but one opinion on one occasion – no?

If we strive to move the world forward, we have to encourage free thinking which breaks out of the box and tests boundaries. Effective and frank reportage is bound to draw the ire of some, that is the risk that is taken by the adventurous and committed Writer.

To some degree this kind of notoriety can manifest professional success in the media, as in the case of Antony Bourdain and other out-spoken commentators.

Love it or hate it, Ed’s posts shine out from the blandness of much online content. For that I don’t believe that he should be censured, but rather serve to inspire more creativity with the written word.

Sarah, As someone with Asian heritage, I do not find Ed bigoted. Rather I understood the context of his words as to mean that it is a poor paradigm to have an Occidental with not so exceptional Oriental cooking skills heading a kitchen serving Asian food, while Asians with mediocre front of house skills have been hired as waitstaff, perhaps to add to the Oriental theming of the venue. His conclusion is that it adds up to a less than sensational result. Lateral thinking, not racism.

Ed, I said that *I* think food should be at the fore (though of course not the sole focus), so just like you, I was expressing an opinion. I also think it’s entirely possible to write a brief, humorous review without heaps of detail. What I have an issue with is a review which uses a variety of techniques to create a negative impression, regardless of how relevant the elements are. No-one else knows about the bosoms of your companions. What you ate is unclear. Some readers might think you’re making a connection between professional competence (serving of alcohol), language problems or ethnicity and quality of employee (‘drag in’) (though I agree it’s probably just an unfortunate choice of words). And the urinal meme easily carries more connotations than just the shape of the bowls – your post title (Urinal restaurant. Shit bar.) strongly evokes an image that the place is completely crap (if you’ll excuse my mixed excrement). Maybe the crowd who were there on that night were representative of the clientele, though for me the article looked like it was conjecture; you clarified above.

As I wrote earlier, if someone did something similar when writing about foodblogs, you wouldn’t have a bar of it.

It would seem I’m a minority in my reservations, and am happy to acknowledge that and leave it there. And I’m glad to know I share your dislike for the stupidly wide tables at Longrain.

Robust discussion indeed. More planning & articulative skills have gone into the comments than into the original 2 posts.

Ed, you may call yourself a snob, but I bet your mother thinks your a very naughty boy