Yes. They are the same restaurant.

No. They won't merge.

Otherwise they would beat Taco Bell in the franchise wars, and we know they don't.

I have to defer to bovil on this, because we have none of the above here, to the best of my knowledge.

yes all the same. Same crap differnt atmosphere. each one is a theme to attract some other small section of the populace while also catering to the craptastic "american" palate which they themselves created cause you know what I will be damned ifg i ever had any of that cooking at a real persons house.. and lets face it thats where you get the real taste of a culture is it's fast food and especially it's home cooking.

Oh and they will never merge or they would lose the ability to appeal to duiffernign segments of the culture at large and lose customers that way. And to think you are my business manager :P

sigh... also get someone in your life that can OH i don't know COOK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think they're all the same.

It seems that way, though some of them are more the same than others (to paraphrase Orwell). I've been a bit more happy with Chili's and Ruby Tuesday's than with the others, in part because they offer veggie burgers. Chili's black bean burger is particularly good -- it was something tasty to eat on my last layover at O'hare.

In the future, all restraunts are Taco Bell.

Bennigan's = Monte Cristo. A good one at that. But that's all I eat there. We have an Indian place down the street and Jay eats pizza. Lots and lots of pizza. Not even good pizza. It's horrible. But, last night he made pot roast so I'll keep him for awhile longer.

While they all share a certain esprit de corps, it's more about the fact that they are catering to the "American hangout" market than that they are the same.

I know the distinctions because there are different "things I can eat" at each place. It's really more about the marketing, though. At some point in the last 10 years or so, this idea of the "american" restaurant has been captured and bottled into franchises...