Posted on 10/15/2010 9:11:27 AM PDT by Ptarmigan
And you would be correct!
Well, actually I would go further. Perhaps the respect issue is getting confused here with admiration also.
I admire them for what they did, and respect them for who they are now.
The admiration has nothing to do with their clothes. It's the same no matter what.
I would buy them a bottle of wine at a snooty restaurant in a suit, toast them at a honky tonk in jeans, or buy them a lap dance at a stripper bar if that's where they went, but while the admiration for their service is the same throughout, the respect and self-respect levels at each are a little different perhaps.
Agreed, but I will respect them for having the courage to do what most will not.
It changes people. I know. First hand.
Aha. As I suspected in 67.
We're not getting the whole story here. These guys would not have gone to a nice restaurant in a t-shirt. No way.
They have an business to run. It's called PR.
The one vet was also, "a graduate of the Wharton School of business and a retired hospital administrator from Maryland." I'm sure he has a pretty good grasp of what is appropriate for a "business casual" environment.
Then he's even more of a jerk.
The dress code:
Dress code at Five Sixty is business casual, collared shirt for gentlemen. Jeans are acceptable as long as they are not torn. No sandals or flip-flops for gentlemen.
but lose the hat when you walk in.
Agreed.
I am beginning to wonder if anyone but me actually read the article(s). The gentlemen in question went to the restaurant to view the city from their skydeck. They wore t-shirts, ball-caps, and shorts. When told to leave, they did. They understood, didn't cause a problem.
THEIR FAMILIES are the ones who complained. Not them. They did accept the apology, but did not visit the scene again, either. Better things to do than fuss over something that small. The picture is from another event they attended, btw.
I noticed that the article mentioned a tour of some sort. I suspect that the vets, dressed in t-shirt, shorts and ballcaps, were on vacation and decided to see if they could get to have a look around on a whim. Their reaction seems to confirm this.
It wasn’t until the wives got involved that things went south in a hurry. This could have been handled better by the hostest and the wives, but I don’t think the vets themselves were out of line.
You weren’t the only one to notice that.
Something does not make any sense. I remember this Commander who would not let us ensigns off the boat unless we had coats, ties shined shoes, pleats in your pants plus a haircut. If we went into a restaurant, the hats came off.
It was, in point of fact, a German camp.
British, Commonwealth, and American pilots were held there. The Americans were transferred after work on the tunnels had begun but before the actual escape; the Nazis thought there was a chance of some sort of separate deal with the US.
The History Channel aired a documentary along with the movie. In it, British veterans of the escape said they didn't begrudge the dramatic license of having Americans take part in the escape, because they were involved in the tunnel work.
Thanks for the additional info. Apparently there was an OSS American colonel who was a bit like Steve McQueen. aka Cooler King.
They were dressed like tourists. They went to a spot with scenic views, and were dressed for a day-long tour, not for dinner at an upscale restaurant. I hope that after this incident, the tour group involved made a note of the dress code.
Most cities have a restaurant like this, on top of a tall building with great views, usually with good but not great and overpriced food and drinks. Most of them, and I'm thinking in particular of the Sundial here in Atlanta, have a bar area for tourists that's separate from the more formal dining room. That's something the restaurant might want to consider.
Thanks for the intelligent comments..I concur..shorts was probably the deciding factor in the hostesses’ mind.. OTOH..I suspect that these quiet, unassuming heroes were unwilling to call attention to their exploits..they felt it would unfairly trading on their status..which only makes them more heroic in my estimation..The real question here is who called the paper, and why is this a story..?
Thank you. I was starting to think I'd wandered over to DU without noticing, except a lot of the posts were supporting the anger at the restaurant, which I wouldn't expect at DU.
I agree with your post #95 and I know that some people pose as vets and medal awardees. But I don’t think there are that many. I am one of those who is old enough to have served in Vietnam but who was drafted into the Army in 1961 and honorably discharged in 1963, having never left my home state of CA.
I am with you, Sam. I don’t care who you are, places have a dress code for a reason. It is reasonable to dress appropriately for the occasion or venue.
Thank you for including the entire story (the apology, etc.).
Many people post outrageous stories, but don’t include any follow up. I’m glad the restaurant tried to make things right.
Sam, come back to me when you're 93 and don't know a tie from a sock, and likely won't know how to take a dump without somebody's help, then we'll discuss fashion and proper attire at a restaurant. The reason we can all know these were WWII vets is that they didn't whine, stamp their feet or complain when turned away. They acted like MEN. Which is far more than I can say for today's whiney American she-males who spend their precious time worrying about how WWII vets dress when they go to a restaurant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.