Man who went to trial over seafood says he's misunderstood

Ralph Paul says web posts that suggest he was a thief hiding behind his military background hurt him the most. "I'll be honest. That hurt me. That cut me like nothing else could," says Paul. "My integrity and honor are things that I hold close." (St. Petersburg Times)
> Read Paul's letter to the St. Petersburg Times

Comments

[oxhead]

I say that if you hold your honor and integrity close, then pay your bill, even when you know you've been gypped. Going to court over something stupid like this is not honorable.

He looks worse now than ever for not just letting this whole thing die. I really don't understand this "code" he refers to. In the military you do what you're told, period. In his case, he was told to drop bombs on unseen people from the sky. How can he do that without question but can't fulfill a simple obligation like paying for a meal?

I need my secret code breaker ring to figure this guy out. But I still say his meal looked like poop on a platter - A real Florida Yankee special.

[lester]

yo, mr paul: writing IN ALL CAPS doesn't add to your argument. it just shows what a dork you are. also, dear sir, when they remove a dish from your bill ... you still tip for the original amount, not the reduced amount.

[Janky-o]

I think I understand Mr. Paul's honor and integrity. He's willing to spend thousands of dollars of his own money plus thousands of dollars of taxpayer money in order to win.

The need to win and show you are the one in the right is what's behind road rage, vendettas, and the like. Real integrity means giving in and paying for your meal even when you've been given too much pasta and too little shrimp. Especially when you already at the thing.

[Stan Flouride]

Anybody know where we can send links to the three articles here so he can read what 'nice' things we have to say about him?

[pnwgal]

LOL, Stan.

This asshat deserves the publicity and he deserves to be made the butt of several jokes. That he didn't pay for his meal is one thing, but the fact that he stiffed the waitress who served him should get him run over by his own car several times.

God, he's a prick. Boo-fucking-hoo, Col. Dickhead.

The fact that he reminds readers that he wasted thousands of our tax dollars makes me hate him more.

[Randy]

He didn't waste the money. The District Attorney who took this case to trial did.

[Rusty]

46 bucks and an 'I'll never eat here again!' and none of this would have happened!

[John]

The more I see the comments of people who are so infuriated by this guy, the more I am impressed with him.

Customers have a right to complain about service, especially in a restaurant where you are paying extra for the experience. Yes, this guy sounds like a jerk, but he refused to take crappy service just because it was easier, whereas most everyone else here seems to advocate a lazy, submit-to-authority point of view. Not only do many of the posters here seem to think that they have no rights, but they seem to draw no distinction between buying a candy bar from a vending machine and eating a meal in a restaurant. Why eat out at all if you expect no control over your dining experience?

As I have followed the comments here over the past few days it is beginning to seem to me that many of you are really just angry that he refused to submit to authority the way you have done in the past. In my opinion, you have completely justified this man's behavior by illustrating how much easier it is for people accept substandard treatment because they are worried to make a scene.

A restaurant that treats its customers poorly, won't even deal with the BBB, and pursues criminal charges where small claims were needed at most, does not deserve advocates here nor customers in the real world.

[Soo]

John, I think you may have missed the crux of our generalized outrage.

If he had paid the check MINUS the offending entree, we probably wouldn't have been so harsh. Stiffing the restaurant for the entire check was bad form when only one part of the dinner was disputed.

The guy got beverages, entrees, and desserts for two, which makes six items. Six minus one is five. Five items on that receipt were basically stolen from the restaurant.

Is that still okay with you? 'Cause it's not okay with me.

[Randy]

Soo---He tried to pay that part, they refused/

I for one might not have 46.00 in cash on me at any given time. I would have 6 credit cards and 2 debit cards, but couldn't scrape together $35.00 or so to leave on the table.

"As I have followed the comments here over the past few days it is beginning to seem to me that many of you are really just angry that he refused to submit to authority the way you have done in the past."

If obeying the law makes me a passive sheep without a criminal record (and minus some dumb "code" that I made up to justify my arrogance), then I say BAH. I don't go to restaurants, eat the seafood off my entree and THEN complain about it in expectation that my CODE exempts me from paying all of my bill.

If this guy had half a brain, he'd be quiet and exit the limelight. His 15 minutes are over.

[pnwgal]

I don't believe it was the service that was the problem (although he DID screw the waitress tip-wise), it was that he wasn't happy with the amount of seafood that was on his dish. He should have sent the dish back BEFORE he ate all the seafood, not after.

If I get lousy service at a restaurant or don't feel the entree was worth the amount charged for it, I let the management know-and then I give tongue like a hound in the field about the lousy experience-I will tell anyone and everyone that will listen to me. And I won't ever patronize that establishment again.

I WON'T refuse to pay my bill (which technically is tatamount to stealing), waste thousands of my dollars AND taxpayer dollars to uphold some ridiculous "code" I expect everyone else around me to live by.

[Soo]

Good point, Randy. I almost never carry cash with me.

Something to keep in mind next time I go out for dinner--bring cash 'cause you never know when your entree will have too few shrimps!

[Elitist City-Dweller]

I don't know why all of you are complaining. Some people, like this man, have dedicated their lives to the cause of war. He has ordered countless underlings to fight for his right not to pay his restaurant tab, to force taxpayers to pay for a 7-hour trial, to make a public point (useless though it may be). This man has been an officer in the United States Armed Forces. He should have the right to subjectively decide if there's enough seafood in his meal. He's not just some enlisted military man or a fast food worker or some civil service grunt! This man is on the verge of being a hero. We should all strive to emulate him and his heroic actions.

Besides, I loved his version of 'Hallelujah, It's Raining Men,' from quite a few years ago. That alone should let him off the hook.

[H]

The article says that the restaurant's policy is to deduct a dish from the bill when the customer is not satisified. They went against their own policy. It's obvious that he was not doing it for the money. It would have been far cheaper for him to pay the bill or settle than to hire a lawyer, so all those charges that he was too cheap to pay make no sense. He was also clearly not too cheap to leave a tip; he was willing to spend far more than that, and he did spend far more than that. Anybody who considers his server extremely rude but still leaves a $7 tip is not stiffing his waitress. If you argue with a customer and still get a tip, consider yourself lucky.

Had the manager done what he claims is standard policy, the whole thing would not have happened.

[D]

H you just nailed that that was the whole point.