Tonyfinch

What makes you think they were their nieces?

A pig's foot and a bottle of beer- Bessie Smith

I have no particular opinion of Terry Durack but I notice he reviews one restaurant per week (even if he maybe goes to more) like Gill and Fort and Jay. My question is this? Is writing about one restaurant per week regarded by newspaper editors as a full time job and paid a full time salary? It's not a facetious question. I would really like to know.

No-one's mentioned reds. The sweet fruit,soft brown sugariness of Australian Shiraz works really well,especially with roasted meat dishes.

I see JBR at The Landmark is not included in the new Time Out guide. Serious demotion as this is a widely consulted guide,apparently. Mind you,their inclusion policy is mysterious. They have never included Petit Robert, or The Don, or Quadrato (an excellent up-scale Italian in the Four Seasons hotel at Canary Wharf-although they do include the same hotel's pretentious Ubon). I couldn't see Angel Mangal either.

Deacon, I agree with a great deal of that last post. However the true snob is into the exclusivity of his elite. S/he doesn't want people enjoying The French Laundry because it ceases to be exclusive and s/he will have to move on somewhere else. This is a bore, so the snob will try to discourage not encourage the great unwashed from going there. It is this meanness of spirit that characterizes the snob above everything else. Anybody who says "hey I've found a much better restaurant than any YOU might know,come and join me" might be an irritating sod but they are not a snob.

It's worth pointing out that in the sixties Cahiers du Cinema magazine in France and Movie magazine in Britain had a policy in which films were reviewed by reviewers who liked that particular director's work. This sometimes meant that certain directors and films (David Lean and Lawrence of Arabia was the famous example) received no review because none of Movie's crirtics liked Lean enough to want to review the film. The editor of Movie defended the omission on the grounds that the best review will be written by the critic who best understands the film, usually because he is the most sympathetic to it. Enthusiasm was the criterion for inclusion. No-one thought or even questioned why this reviewer liked this and not that director. The critic's subjective taste in director's was taken as a given. His/her preferences were the starting point for a discussion on each film. There were no objectively agreed standards outside of those.

What the hell are chippy trucks?

Sure Bux. I'm sure Steve will be flattered. I think the issue you raise about "correct in context" is incredibly important. Take Retsina. Crap wine right? Well maybe in London or Manhattan, but sitting on the Greek coast in a local family run taverna, staring at the blue sea,nibbling mezze, octopus, calamari, grilled fish with lemon, artichokes in olive oil etc.-ice cold retsina -----PERFECT And objectively you know that Romanee Conti is a better wine but at that moment if Romanee Conti was put in front of you, you (or at least I) would definitely not want it because at that moment in that context it would NOT be the better wine for any practical purpose. Pastis is another good example. I can hardly bear to smell it in my flat in London. But plonk me down in a Provencal place at sunset in front of a bar with the old mecs playing boules before getting ready for dinner-PARADISE. I'm sure people have got loads of other examples. A new thread maybe?

The fact that the majority of people in Paris brasseries are drinking wine with their steak frites shows only that the people who go to Paris brasseries prefer wine with their steak frites. In what way does it reflect some kind of universal truth that wine is the "correct" thing to drink with steak frites? Who conferred upon the people who visit Paris brasseries a monopoly on deciding gastronomic standards? Go into large swathes of the beer drinking world and you will see as many people drinking beer with steak and chips. Why is this less "correct"?

I've met you both and i'm trying to figure out which Jewish man was which.

Wilfrid, I'm not talking about the third world or something. The overwhelming majority of the population in Europe and the USA do not drink wine with their meals. I'm sure that also applies to Australia, New Zealand and South America. Ther's a hell of a lot more people eating steak and chips than drinking wine with their meals

You're sure Sam wasn't referring to the lead in Scott's pencil?

Steve,you have the most amazing facility for only reading what you want to read. What I said was that amongst those who like wine with steak frites a broad consensus MAY emerge as to which is the "best" wine to have with steak frites. The majority of the world's population do not like wine. They don't drink wine. They have no interest in wine. Wine is irrelevant to them. You appear to believe that because people like you and me enjoy wine and because people who you call "experts" but who in fact have a massive vested interest in promoting wine, say that wine is the "correct" thing to drink with steak frites ,then it is the "correct"thing to drink with steak frites. Who actually says so but yourself? The wine experts comment on which wine to drink. They pre-suppose that you wish to drink wine. The consensus is arrived at AFTER the preference is made clear. To the non-drinker the wine expert would say:"I've nothing to say to you" NOT that you have an inferior palate or defective taste. The preferences and the standards do not exist independently of each other . The latter is a fuction of the former.

Fine. No problem. Those who like mustard in their mash may reach a consensus. Like those who like wine with steak frites. I've said that all along. My point is/was that those who do NOT like wine with steak frites or mustard in their mash do not have "inferior" palates and are not "wrong" by ANY standards.

I may be going crazy but I didn't think that was the issue at all. Does anybody dispute that within certain parameters of more or less there is the "right" amount of salt to add to mashed potatoes? But what about other ingredients? Cheese, or mustard,or sour cream or chives or lemon juice or whatever whatever that recipes add to mashed potato In order to agree a "standard" of the "right" amounts of those ingredients to add to the mashed potato you must first establish that they are PER SE the "right" ingredients to add in the first place. If I say "I like mustard in my mashed potato" we can discuss which mustard and how much and maybe come to a consensus. But the consensus follows from the assumption that mustard in my mashed potato is what I want, NOT that mustard is the "correct" ingredient to add And, unlike salt, there will be no such consensus.

No.They are the very large group of people who have a massive vested interest in selling wine. As far as they are concerned wine is the "right" thing to drink with virtually everything. Their livelihoods depend on it. WHICH wine to drink may require a degree of experience and expertise but even that will be influenced by self interest. eg. The Sauternais will always claim that Sauternes is the "right" thing to drink with foie gras.But there are lots of sweet wines that will do just as well and you won't find "experts" from Sauternes recommending those. What Steve calls the "commonly held standard" is driven not by some sort of neutral expertise but by economic necessity and though this doesn't invalidate the judgement (foie gras DOES go well with Sauternes) it ican hardly be said to be the result of some small group of skilled and neutral "experts".

No,that would not make you a snob. What would make you a snob would be if everyone else suddenly "discovered" those scallops and you,instead of being pleased about it, immediately felt your exclusivity compromised and felt driven to assert another scallop as the best in order to keep ahead of the game.

Don't you mean "right"?

Weeeell. I suppose if the Matzoh's were Rakusens.......

Now you're being silly. I mean who puts matzoh in a sandwich?

Steve, I don't accept the analogy. Here's another analogy: You and I are sitting there and I have some bread and cheese. I ask "what should I put on my cheese sandwich?" You answer:"Tomato" ME: "But I don't like tomato. In fact I HATE tomato. YOU: "But you are WRONG" ME:"Who says" You: Well,me for a start. But not only me. Lots of people. Experts. ME: Experts? YOU: Yes. People who know. People who have written books about tomatoes. And how well it accompanies bread and cheese. ME: Why should I give a flying fart about your "experts"? Who cares what they think. I'm not interested in tomatoes and I'm not interested in anything they say about tomatoes because tomatoes are not a part ogf my life and ever will be. Stuff your tomatoes. Now pass me that onion.

For anyone still interested. LML asked "What should one drink with steak frites"? There IS only one answer that is not meaningless. That answer is: "There is no answer to the question: "what should one drink with steak frites" ". Or put another way : "Anything you wish" The question: "What WINE should one drink with steak frites" is a totally and utterly different question and bears no relation whatsoever to the first question. OK I'm done (I think).

Our rice cooker is from Iran..............you plug it in............................it has a dial to control the degree of doneness of the crust, like a toaster.................................it's very nice.....................................yup.

Presumably not before relieving you of 200 odd smackers for the privilege.