Wife learns of hubby’s cheating from dining review | TribLIVE.com
U.S./World

Wife learns of hubby’s cheating from dining review

Chris Pastrick
2019401_web1_web-diningformal

A food writer’s dining review did more than just satisfy his readers’ appetites.

He exposed a cheating husband.

A recent review by Washington Post critic Tom Sietsema was accompanied with a photograph of the establishment. But one reader spotted something rather unappetizing: Her husband dining with another woman.

Last week, the woman posted on Sietsema’s weekly live chat column “Ask Tom,” thanking him for exposing the cheater.

“Well Tom your latest review is accompanied by a picture of my husband dining with a woman who isn’t me!” the woman posted in the online forum. “Once confronted with photographic evidence, he confessed to having an ongoing affair. Just thought you’d be amused to hear of your part in the drama. This Thanksgiving I’m grateful to you for exposing a cheat!”

Ouch.

Sietsema seemed none too happy to be involved in the reveal, replying, “Please, please, please tell me this is a crank post. I’d hate to learn otherwise. I file two reviews a week, for Food and the Magazine, so I’m not sure which restaurant this is.”

It’s still unclear which restaurant the cheating husband met his fate in, but there’s a good lesson to be learned: If you’re gonna cheat, don’t go to a place good enough to merit a dining review.

Chris Pastrick is a Tribune-Review digital producer. You can contact Chris at 412-320-7898, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: News | World
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.