# English Pub Etiquette - "... and one for yourself" **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 10, 2012, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-pub-etiquette-and-one-for-yourself/608998 "2012-01-10T01:46:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-pub-etiquette-and-one-for-yourself/608998/41 "2012-01-13T18:41:15Z")
I do it quite often, in pubs I use regulary, also where I’ve received over and above normal service, or sometimes mega crowded pubs where I’ve wanted to be served before others in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Teacake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Teacake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Teacake)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2012, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-pub-etiquette-and-one-for-yourself/608998/42 "2012-01-13T23:44:21Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > 1/ When one states the way of doing something without qualifying that one does not do that thing at all except in certain limited circumstances, an unfamiliar audience will not assume the qualification. Particularly when the audience in question is used to doing that thing universally. It is revisionist to suggest that the only point being made in these circumstances was the way of doing the thing: like it or not, intended or not, the point the audience will unintentionally take is that this thing is done outside of the limited circumstances in which it will actually be done. It surprises me that someone with a sufficiently responsible job that they bring a “pile of work” home can repeatedly post in a way that shows no understanding of this fundamental of clear communication. > > 2/ Your post does not evince any obvious understanding of the basic concept of the one way nature of the flow of time. Generally what we find is that one can know the past but not the future. Thus if we read something that confuses us, we may ask for clarification, despite the fact that in future that clarification may be provided. We generally don’t know what clarification will be provided till we receive it. And a standard way of obtaining that clarification is to ask for it. You say that my “investigation” (by which I assume you mean my commencement of this thread) mystifies you. I don’t know there is much I can do more for you in this respect. Some sort of basic textbook about the nature of time may assist. > > 3/ You may be familiar with a joke, the punchline of which is that on the third occasion the bear meets the man the bear says “You’re not here for the hunting, are you?” It’s a bad taste joke and I hesitate to draw parallels. However, I wonder if it is really advisable for you to post a third time, along the lines of your last two? 1. I believe that the OP in the other thread would have seen the word “sometimes” in the first post on the matter, seen the words “certainly not bar staff” in the second, and then before you started this thread seen the clarification that it was something that happened with regular customers. She didn’t need to “assume the qualification”. It was clearly made. To have taken one point, which was \*not \*stated, from **SciFiSam** ’s first post, but ignored the point which \*was \*explicitly stated, seems like something only someone with reading comprehension difficulties would do. I do not have the impression that the OP of the other thread is such a person. 2. As I pointed out previously, before you started this thread the clarification had already been offered. It has been reiterated by every person since then. Certainly as time goes on, the consensus grows, but no-one seems to have had any problem comprehending it from the start apart from you. Your investigation mystifies me because the clarification you wanted was already there. And because it’s such a pointless thing to get so exercised over. No bar person is going to be offended if you offer them a drink, whether you’re a regular, an awkward-orderer, a big spender or just a well-meaning American. It simply wasn’t important enough to make a big deal of it - to any of us - when the main advice was not to leave the money on the table: the explicitly stated point of the first post. 3. Are you suggesting that I’m somehow losing and you’re somehow winning? I didn’t realise this was that sort of thing. How childish. I thought we were just hashing it out (similar to many a conversation to be had in pubs, to give you an impression of how I was approaching it), but if that’s how you’re feeling, I’ll leave you to your distasteful determination to be right. [Incidentally, do you _really_ want to cast yourself in the role of delusional rapist? That seems… odd.] ---
**Author:** ![stuyguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@stuyguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stuyguy)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2012, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-pub-etiquette-and-one-for-yourself/608998/43 "2012-01-14T02:40:05Z")
I can’t offer a firsthand opinion on the topic, as I don’t visit bars/pubs often, here in the US or in Britain. But I am a historian and I remember reading about how ye olde bartenders handled the matter of patrons offering to buy them a drink – a practice that I gathered was not uncommon in the US the era of the late 1800s to early 1900s, or thereabouts. The barkeep, who was not supposed to drink, would say something like, “Well, that’s might generous of you, Clem, but I’m not feeling very thirsty just now. But I’d be delighted to take you up on your offer in the form of one of these lovely cee-gars!” Whereupon the bartender added the cigar price to the patron’s tab and smoked or pocketed his “tip” for later consumption. Every bar of the era stocked and sold cigars, and presumably all men smoked them, so it was probably a pretty good system. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/english-pub-etiquette-and-one-for-yourself/608998.md?page=2)