g.johnson

If we can't agree on the language to have this conversation, and I submit that my offering the commonly held verbiage as being acceptable language, I don't see how we will ever get past the semantics. Absolutely. So lets go with the OED. So the disgusting food examples do fit the definition of complex. I am quite happy to acknowledge that complexity is often regarded as a good thing. However, it is not always a good thing. The problem is that you wish to use complexity as an objective measure of the quality of a cuisine. But if you also insist that complexity necessarily means quality, assessment of complexity ceases to be objective. So you have two choices. Either use ‘complex’ in the dictionary sense, when it tells us nothing of the quality of the food. Or use it in your sense when it ceases to be an objective standard. Not entirely. The Batali pasta dish that Yvonne has liked most is a simple spaghetti with olive oil, black pepper and pecorino at Lupa.

Several people, including myself, have given examples of complex food combinations that are disgusting. Several other examples spring to mind. Simple instructions for your VCR are better than complex ones. A simple design for most practical items (engines, assault rifles, blenders, etc.) is usually preferred (less likely to break down). Simple theories are preferred to complex ones in science. Edit: I see Gavin Jones beat me to it and with greater wit.

Good. You are acknowledging that complex is not necessarily good. And therefore that when the gourmet/connoisseur describes a cheese or wine as 'complex' it is merely shorthand because, in this context, complexity is often good. However, you have now revealed the error of your original argument. If complex is not always good you cannot measure the quality of dish/cuisine solely by complexity of taste, still less by complexity of cooking technique. I'm glad you've come round to our way of thinking. Edit: Crap punctuation.

No, I am not confusing the two. I have clearly distinguished, several times, between complex/good, complex/bad, simple/good and simple/bad. 'Complex' simply does not imply that that result is good and anyone who claims different doesn't know English. However, I note that for the first time you’ve acknowledged this by introducing the term ‘complementary’ which, in context, is synonymous with good. So you’re learning. Keep it up.

Glyn -This is simply not true. Among restauranteurs, chefs and pastry chefs, one would very likely here them use "better" in this way. Would Steve Klc say that an asafoetida and peach sorbet, with fish sauce and grated Hersheys is “better” than a raw peach because it’s more complex? Of course not. Like everyone he’d say it was more complex and worse. I repeat: complexity and quality are different concepts. To conflate them means that we no longer have terms with which to discuss the simple and good and the complex and bad. That just won’t do.

Good essay on Orwell in this weeks New Yorker. For the off-topic police: Orwell worked as a dishwasher in a Paris hotel.

This is simply not what 'better' means. Similarly 'complex' is not a synonym for 'good'. If you want to say that a more complex preparation has the potential to be better, fine. But you can't just redefine words to mean what you want them to mean.

A pedant writes... None of you know what linear means. And its opposite is not multidimensional but non-linear. OK, just had to say that. Carry on. Edit: Rogue apostrophe.

What it's saying is that quality is not a function of complexity. They're two orthogonal variables, if you insist on mathematical analogies. Simple and good: perfect peach. Complex and good: DiSpirito’s scallop starter. Simple and bad: off season tomatoes. Complex and bad: anything at AZ.

No, not really. Mill is not talking about the quality of the experience per se, but about the quality of the happiness that the experience brings. Both Bentham and Mill want to increase the total amount of happiness in the world. But Bentham believes all men’s happiness is equal: my pleasure in drinking 2002 white zinfandel is equal to your pleasure in drinking 1870 Lafite. Net happiness would then be increased by selling your bottle of Lafite to buy 2000 bottles of white zinfandel. But Mill argues that happiness can differ in quality: your happiness drinking the Lafite is greater and that can outweigh the lesser happiness of a larger number of people. This is, I think, relevant to eating. The pleasure that an FMJD brings is so great that it outweighs a hundred great pizzas.

I suspect that Dylan's poetic technique is vastly superior to that of most librettists.

In the absence of Wilfrid, I am obliged to point out that this question is analogous to an argument between Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham, in formulating utilitarianism, argued that the morality of an action (or the value of a restaurant) is determined by its tendency to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number. By this measure DiFara is better than Gagnaire. Mill, however, thought that the quality of the pleasure must be taken into account in addition to its quantity. “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” However, as Mill may have thought that eating was a “beast’s pleasure” he might have eschewed both DiFara and Gagnaire.

Oh no you don't. NY has MOMA with its truly world class collection - in fact - it sets the level of modern art by which all others are judged. But nothing, in the whole of the US for that matter, comes close to the quality & breadth of the British Museum. It was solely on the basis of MOMA that I awarded a tie. What NYC museums have that partially makes up for the relative weakness of their collections is the money spent on their displays. Where the BM has yellowing index cards, the Met has videos.

You can get an official picture ID, similar to a driver's license. Look up the NY department of motor vehicles, or whatever they call it.

I think it's more attributable to a London upswing than a NYC downswing. I was conscious of greater vitality in London several years ago, possibly starting when the Labour government was elected.

Plotnicki, we agree. Which, disturbingly, is becoming something of a habit.

You are, I believe, misreading this article. (Emphasis added.) Though the wording is somewhat ambiguous, I think the context makes it clear that the margerine and shortenings made from canola oil are rich in trans-fatty acids. The level in canola oil due to deoderizing is not stated as far as I can see.

Think picnic.

We've had this trouble with you before. How do we know you're quoting Jackson accurately? Photograph the page and post it immediately.

Not that adding New Jersey would increase the area of parkland.

Sigh. 26,138 hectares is about 40% of 28,000 acres (the latter figure being an underestimate). JJS, why not just take a deep breath and let us all know where your figures are from. I do appreciate that you arty types have difficulties distinguishing a numerator from a denominator, so let me do the math. 1 hectare = 2.46 acres. So NYC, according to JJS’s figures, has about 65,000 acres of park.

Soba, the area I was comparing Manhattan to in London is a tiny fraction of the city. But larger than The City. (Just to add to the confusion.)

Oh yes, the question. Frying, etc. I use whatever seems ‘right’. Red meat: duck or goose fat. White meat, fish: butter and/or canola oil. Norhtern vegetables (mushrooms, potatoes): butter. Mediterranean vegetables (courgettes, aubergine, tomatoes): EVOO but only because I can’t be bothered keeping a separate bottle of OO.

Hu and Willet recently reviewed the effects of diet on the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD). Consumption of fat affects levels of cholesterol and triglycerides in the blood, that in turn are associated with the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD). But the story is not entirely straightforward. High levels of low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LHL-C) and high levels of tryglicerides are associated with increased risk of CHD. However, high levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) are associated with decreased risk. So we all want to lower LDL-C and triglycerides and increase HDL-C. All classes of fat (saturated, monounsaturated and polyunsaturated) increase HDL-C and reduce triglycerides (good). However, saturated fats also increase LDL-C (bad), whereas monounsaturated and polyunsaturated decrease LDL-C (good). Trans-fatty acids of the type found in margarine increase LDL-C much more than conventional fatty acids (very bad) also increase triglycerides (bad). Omega 3 fatty acids found in fish oils are also protective through other mechanisms. So the bottom line is that fat is probably not a bad thing per se* although you should avoid margarine and vegetable shortening. Monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats and omega 3 fatty acids are actually a good thing. Polyunsaturated (canola oil, etc.) is slightly better than monounsaturated (olive oil) in this respect. *But may be bad if it contributes to obesity

Er, is anyone disputing JJS's figures?