The truth about Stone Park

Months ago, there were some posts about Stone Park that got deleted. Somehow, a lot of people have falsely assumed this was due to "threats of litigation" from Stone Park. This is absolutely false. As the board owner, I can assure you that there have been absolutely no threats of lawsuits from Stone Park.

This is essentially what happened:
1. Someone posted to the boards that they got "food poisoning" and they were convinced that eating at Stone Park caused it.
2. A Brooklynian poster vocally and repeatedly protested this statement. (We could find no evidence that this poster was affiliated with Stone Park.)
3. A decision was made that, yes, it was impossible to prove or disprove this fairly serious claim of food poisoning. Hence the "deleted" posts.

Just to put this in perspective, it's not unusual that certain restaurant issues would not be appropriate for discussion on Brooklynian: Chowhound, the premier site for commentary on NY restaurants, specifically disallows reports of food poisoning, bugs and foreign objects found in food.

A request: If you are one of the Brooklynians who posted about "threats of litigation" without any evidence of that, it would be really responsible to EDIT or DELETE your post so this gets cleared up.

Now let's all be cool. OK? Thanks!

Thanks for the clarification, although I think the original posts should stay as is. People say all kinds of things online and it's up to the reader to consider the source and make their own decision.

Thanks for the clarification, although I think the original posts should stay as is. People say all kinds of things online and it's up to the reader to consider the source and make their own decision.

Fair enough. For the record though:

1. The original post was about way more than the possible food poisoning from Stone Park. That was just one small part of what happened on that disastrous night.

2. The words slander and libel were specifically brought up by someone who identified himself/herself as a friend of the owners.

Fair enough. For the record though:

1. The original post was about way more than the possible food poisoning from Stone Park. That was just one small part of what happened on that disastrous night.

2. The words slander and libel were specifically brought up by someone who identified himself/herself as a friend of the owners.

Thanks for reminding me that the food poisoning claim was in the context of a post claiming bad service and rude waitstaff.

I don't remember anyone identifying themselves as friends of the owners, but it could have occurred that way.

Thanks for reminding me that the food poisoning claim was in the context of a post claiming bad service and rude waitstaff.

I don't remember anyone identifying themselves as friends of the owners, but it could have occurred that way.

Y'all should have archived it in yer supersecret forum so that you could now speak accurately as to what went down and put it to rest.

Y'all should have archived it in yer supersecret forum so that you could now speak accurately as to what went down and put it to rest.

I don't remember the complainer identifying him/herself as friends of the owners. He posted that he had been to Stone Park "many times."

You may be thinking of Livetotravel, who said the owners were his "childhood buddies." (oops - I was wrong - livetotravel meant that they were childhood buddies of each other, not *livetotravel's* childhood buddies. Livetotravel was the one who suggested that the person who had the bad experience take it up with the restaurant management.

I don't remember the complainer identifying him/herself as friends of the owners. He posted that he had been to Stone Park "many times."

You may be thinking of Livetotravel, who said the owners were his "childhood buddies." (oops - I was wrong - livetotravel meant that they were childhood buddies of each other, not *livetotravel's* childhood buddies. Livetotravel was the one who suggested that the person who had the bad experience take it up with the restaurant management.

Just for clarification purposes - what I said was that the two owners of Stone Park, Josh Foster and Josh Grinker, are childhood friends who grew up together in Park Slope.

I have no "close friendship" relationship with either. I am just a frequent customer who highly values the restuarant. I frequently write reviews of restaurants on several forums in NYC. I always encourage holding the sword until you experience the restuarant more than once - I think it highly irresponsible to trash the place on one visit. That's why I've been vocal on the SP subject. I also know the owners not to be assholes - they usually go out of their way to make sure things happen properly. But shit does happen occassionally - and if it did, it should have been addressed directly.

As to Carnivore's point that someone may have used the word "slander" - that could have been me - I really don't remember - but if I said it, it was in the context that somethings written about restaurants and their ownership on this Board, to me, approach being slanderous.

I'm not a lawyer either - just someone who lives in this community that encourages dialogue - not thrashing.

And thanks to DH for exposing the truth of the matter. Whoever the Mod is that keeps the myth alive about SP allegedly threatening a lawsuit, and posts those red alerts, should come forward and do a mea culpa.

Just for clarification purposes - what I said was that the two owners of Stone Park, Josh Foster and Josh Grinker, are childhood friends who grew up together in Park Slope.

I have no "close friendship" relationship with either. I am just a frequent customer who highly values the restuarant. I frequently write reviews of restaurants on several forums in NYC. I always encourage holding the sword until you experience the restuarant more than once - I think it highly irresponsible to trash the place on one visit. That's why I've been vocal on the SP subject. I also know the owners not to be assholes - they usually go out of their way to make sure things happen properly. But shit does happen occassionally - and if it did, it should have been addressed directly.

As to Carnivore's point that someone may have used the word "slander" - that could have been me - I really don't remember - but if I said it, it was in the context that somethings written about restaurants and their ownership on this Board, to me, approach being slanderous.

I'm not a lawyer either - just someone who lives in this community that encourages dialogue - not thrashing.

And thanks to DH for exposing the truth of the matter. Whoever the Mod is that keeps the myth alive about SP allegedly threatening a lawsuit, and posts those red alerts, should come forward and do a mea culpa.

Livetotravel wrote: And thanks to DH for exposing the truth of the matter. Whoever the Mod is that keeps the myth alive about SP allegedly threatening a lawsuit, and posts those red alerts, should come forward and do a mea culpa.

Well, partial. DH said that there were no threats of litigation from Stone Park, but there are still questions of slander and libel and what have you that no one can really completely answer because the posts were in fact deleted.

I think that it would be fair at this point to perhaps clear the slate and allow positive and negative reviews of Stone Park again, without alert, no?

Livetotravel wrote: And thanks to DH for exposing the truth of the matter. Whoever the Mod is that keeps the myth alive about SP allegedly threatening a lawsuit, and posts those red alerts, should come forward and do a mea culpa.

Well, partial. DH said that there were no threats of litigation from Stone Park, but there are still questions of slander and libel and what have you that no one can really completely answer because the posts were in fact deleted.

I think that it would be fair at this point to perhaps clear the slate and allow positive and negative reviews of Stone Park again, without alert, no?

daver wrote: I think that it would be fair at this point to perhaps clear the slate and allow positive and negative reviews of Stone Park again, without alert, no?

Yes. I decree it.

daver wrote: I think that it would be fair at this point to perhaps clear the slate and allow positive and negative reviews of Stone Park again, without alert, no?

Yes. I decree it.

Great resolution! Gotta love that small "d" democracy at work!

Great resolution! Gotta love that small "d" democracy at work!

If someone gets sick after eating at a restaurant and believe that the restaurant's food made them sick, how do they test their belief? And can they do so without health insurance?

Should the sick person call the restaurant or a city agency?

If someone gets sick after eating at a restaurant and believe that the restaurant's food made them sick, how do they test their belief? And can they do so without health insurance?

Should the sick person call the restaurant or a city agency?

People say they get sick all the time from restaurants. And it seems to me it's always the same people, and boy, do they get sick alot! I think it's really hard for biz. owners these days...where anyone can say anything, and it sticks. No matter what. Still, I hate Stone Cold Park. Overpriced, overrated. But that's just my opinion.

People say they get sick all the time from restaurants. And it seems to me it's always the same people, and boy, do they get sick alot! I think it's really hard for biz. owners these days...where anyone can say anything, and it sticks. No matter what. Still, I hate Stone Cold Park. Overpriced, overrated. But that's just my opinion.

raw wrote: If someone gets sick after eating at a restaurant and believe that the restaurant's food made them sick, how do they test their belief? And can they do so without health insurance?

Should the sick person call the restaurant or a city agency?

From my experience managing restaurants for 5+ years, you have to get a stool sample to prove A) that you have food poisoning in the first place and to get the doctor to try to determine where you got it from.

Most true food poisoning does not begin to "kick in" and cause symptoms for at LEAST 24 hours, usually 48. So if you eat somewhere for dinner and then wake up the next morning feeling pukey its most likely NOT the dinner you ate the night before, but rather something earlier in the day or a day prior. Also, what most people call "food poisoning" isnt- gas and indigestion are NOT food poisoning. Food poisoning is really, really bad (i've had it and did hit the doctor...) you are really sick for days. Most forms of food poisoning last 24-48 hours and cause severe nausea and diarrhea (and its usually cross contamination, not undercooked meat)

ok rant over. I had to get certified in all these food safety classes in my foodservice stint...

raw wrote: If someone gets sick after eating at a restaurant and believe that the restaurant's food made them sick, how do they test their belief? And can they do so without health insurance?

Should the sick person call the restaurant or a city agency?

From my experience managing restaurants for 5+ years, you have to get a stool sample to prove A) that you have food poisoning in the first place and to get the doctor to try to determine where you got it from.

Most true food poisoning does not begin to "kick in" and cause symptoms for at LEAST 24 hours, usually 48. So if you eat somewhere for dinner and then wake up the next morning feeling pukey its most likely NOT the dinner you ate the night before, but rather something earlier in the day or a day prior. Also, what most people call "food poisoning" isnt- gas and indigestion are NOT food poisoning. Food poisoning is really, really bad (i've had it and did hit the doctor...) you are really sick for days. Most forms of food poisoning last 24-48 hours and cause severe nausea and diarrhea (and its usually cross contamination, not undercooked meat)

ok rant over. I had to get certified in all these food safety classes in my foodservice stint...

Carmen wrote: Most true food poisoning does not begin to "kick in" and cause symptoms for at LEAST 24 hours, usually 48. So if you eat somewhere for dinner and then wake up the next morning feeling pukey its most likely NOT the dinner you ate the night before, but rather something earlier in the day or a day prior. Also, what most people call "food poisoning" isnt- gas and indigestion are NOT food poisoning. Food poisoning is really, really bad (i've had it and did hit the doctor...) you are really sick for days. Most forms of food poisoning last 24-48 hours and cause severe nausea and diarrhea (and its usually cross contamination, not undercooked meat)

This is only partially true. Salmonella, Campylobacter, Shigella, E. coli O157:H7 and Bacillus cereus (among others) may cause delayed symptoms. However classic "food poisoning" is from Staph aureus preformed toxin, which typically causes symptoms (predominantly vomiting) within 2-4 hours. Mayonnaise that has not been properly refrigerated is the classic medium for this type of illness. B. cereus can also sometimes cause early symptoms from a preformed toxin, typically from fried rice.
That said, whenever people develop a gastrointestinal illness, chances are that they recently ate something, and in NY there's a good chance that something was a meal out. Everyone always tends to blame the last thing they ate, and most often it has nothing to do with their illness.
However, when someone witnesses unhygienic practices at a restaurant (now matter how fancy or "highly valued" it may be) and then subsequently gets sick after eating there, the argument for a causal relationship is a lot stronger.

Carmen wrote: Most true food poisoning does not begin to "kick in" and cause symptoms for at LEAST 24 hours, usually 48. So if you eat somewhere for dinner and then wake up the next morning feeling pukey its most likely NOT the dinner you ate the night before, but rather something earlier in the day or a day prior. Also, what most people call "food poisoning" isnt- gas and indigestion are NOT food poisoning. Food poisoning is really, really bad (i've had it and did hit the doctor...) you are really sick for days. Most forms of food poisoning last 24-48 hours and cause severe nausea and diarrhea (and its usually cross contamination, not undercooked meat)

This is only partially true. Salmonella, Campylobacter, Shigella, E. coli O157:H7 and Bacillus cereus (among others) may cause delayed symptoms. However classic "food poisoning" is from Staph aureus preformed toxin, which typically causes symptoms (predominantly vomiting) within 2-4 hours. Mayonnaise that has not been properly refrigerated is the classic medium for this type of illness. B. cereus can also sometimes cause early symptoms from a preformed toxin, typically from fried rice.
That said, whenever people develop a gastrointestinal illness, chances are that they recently ate something, and in NY there's a good chance that something was a meal out. Everyone always tends to blame the last thing they ate, and most often it has nothing to do with their illness.
However, when someone witnesses unhygienic practices at a restaurant (now matter how fancy or "highly valued" it may be) and then subsequently gets sick after eating there, the argument for a causal relationship is a lot stronger.

Um, doesn't a person have the right to say they got sick from the food at a place they ate? I don't see how this is libel. It's an opinion. The person felt fine before they went out, ate some food, now feel bad. Simple.

I don't see how this site could be sued for libel when it's jsut an opinion.

Um, doesn't a person have the right to say they got sick from the food at a place they ate? I don't see how this is libel. It's an opinion. The person felt fine before they went out, ate some food, now feel bad. Simple.

I don't see how this site could be sued for libel when it's jsut an opinion.

It is not an opinion. It is an actionable statement of fact. If you wish to state it as a non-actionable opinion, it would have to go very much like this.

"I am sick. I think it's food poisoning. The last meal I ate was at ___ restaurant. I assume that what I ate there must have made me sick..."

FYI, the Brooklynian would be able to get the suit dismissed fairly quickly and inexpensively, because federal law protects internet service providers (except under rare circumstances) from libel liability.

However, the poster who carelessly identifies a given restaurant as the cause of his illness can be identified in the pretrial discovery process and sued personally, and has no statutory protection against liability.

It is not an opinion. It is an actionable statement of fact. If you wish to state it as a non-actionable opinion, it would have to go very much like this.

"I am sick. I think it's food poisoning. The last meal I ate was at ___ restaurant. I assume that what I ate there must have made me sick..."

FYI, the Brooklynian would be able to get the suit dismissed fairly quickly and inexpensively, because federal law protects internet service providers (except under rare circumstances) from libel liability.

However, the poster who carelessly identifies a given restaurant as the cause of his illness can be identified in the pretrial discovery process and sued personally, and has no statutory protection against liability.