These days, as I write in my column today, I've changed. I am unlikely to protest even under severe provocation, although I hope that's not put to the test again any time soon! Two recent poor experiences at Lower Hunter restaurants had me displaying my new-found passivity. One was a terrible meal from an expensive, fine-dining restaurant capable, I'm sure, of exceptional food, the other lousy entrees and mains from a restaurant that was, I think, working to its usual standard.

It was my wife who, uncharacteristically, complained at the first restaurant, and when I was asked by the restaurateur I gave my account too. At the second the four of us considered cancelling our mains order when the entrees arrived, but we filled our glasses and got on with a good time. Yes, we should have cancelled the mains.

I'm not at all sure that my new reluctance to complain is the best course. I am, believe it or not, averse to conflict, at least when I'm trying to enjoy myself, and so at-the-table protest is extremely unlikely. As well, I can't see the point of the fuss and bother.

The Herald's food writer, Jenny Tarran, suggests sorting out serious complaints at payment time rather than sending a meal back for a replacement, and it is interesting that Jenny shares the relatively new concern about what goes on behind the swinging kitchen doors.

I'm inclined now to pay ne'er to return but I suspect there's a better policy that is fairer to the diner and to the many restaurateurs who strive for a positive experience all round. Each non-returning diner is a fail mark for the restaurateur, and word of mouth is more likely to be devastating for restaurants than most other businesses.

What's your response to lousy restaurant meal?