LaNiña

all the....possibilities have been exhausted? That's absurd. Jaybee is right. All it takes is one visionary who sees it differently, or in a new light.

" the gurfet is a waffle cut pototoe." Bunny, do you mean "gaufrette?"

"Nina - Pale supermarket tomatoes are shitty. That's why they sell for .99 a pound. Beefsteak tomatoes are delicious. That's why they are going for $4.99 a pound. It ain't rocket science. " You can't tell me you use price as a measure of quality. C'mon.

Plotnicki, you showered? I didn't realize it was July already! "Is a beautiful beefsteak or a perfectly formed and ripe roma plum tomato better than a pale supermarket tomato? The best you can say is that "better" is the wrong word to use. But to quibble over the word, which is what we do around here is really useless. Whatever you want to call it, the point is made. Anyone who likes a pale supermarket tomato better than a beefsteak, doesn't know anything about tomatoes and we just shouldn't listen to them." Not a good example. Nature determined this criterion. If a tomato is left to ripen naturally, then it would be red and juicy and tasty. The pale supermarket tomato was tampered with prematurely.

One of the things my mother and I most enjoy arguing about is what makes something "chic." Related to this, no? I've been nudging her to get on here already. She would have much to add. But I don't think she'd be able to keep herself from correcting Plotnicki's grammar and spelling.

"Quality isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of meeting objective standards." - that was me quoting you, Steve dear. Read up a few. But freshness *is* an objective criterion. That's entirely different than subjective taste and experience.

Hot noodles, cold cottage cheese. Either sweet, as Steve suggests, or not. Can be just plain, or have a little salt and pepper added.

"Quality isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of meeting objective standards." But whose objective standards???? Standards of any kind have meaning only when likeminded people view those standards, or choose to behave within their constraints. Take the argument about appropriate dress, for which I'm still villified on CH. I argued that there IS a standard for appropriate dress in fine restaurants, but man, a lot of people do NOT agree with that.

Toby, while I'm sure your intentions are good, you must understand that this argument is, at its core, one that the participants are thoroughly enjoying. It is not acrimonious. I do not want to be told to "put away my axe." I'm not yielding an axe, nor is anyone else who is involved in this discussion, as far as I know. Nobody is denying anyone anything. It's a discussion among consenting, opinionated adults. It's great sport.

You hit the nail on the head, Cabby: "...among many other diners interested in cuisine...." That's not a great big percentage of the world's population, right? Listen, I'm a snob and an elitist and I don't apologize for it. And I believe fully in the superiority of French cuisine, in so far as it ranks as culinary artistry. But it doesn't *move* me the way certain other cuisines move me as an eating experience. I can appreciate the technical mastery of certain painters, for example, but it doesn't mean that those paintings will have as much meaning for me.

And is that hooked on classics crap that you sell any less "good" than real classical music? A lot of people like it, even people (like you, if memory serves), who appreciate the "real" thing.

Food is different than literature, because it involves an individual PHYSICAL response, ie taste buds, sense of smell, interacting with food. I can taste every type of food known to mankind, but I still might not LIKE certain things. If you and I come to the understanding that we have similar tastes, similar experiences, and similar goals, then your opinion will carry weight with me. But for someone who doesn't share your tastes, or has no interest in those experiences, it doesn't matter in any way. I have a really good friend whom I consider one of the smartest people I know. Well travelled, well read, a great writer, blah blah. His opinion about food means NOTHING to me because he's culinary boor. But believe you me, there are a lot of people like him in the world - and those people's opinions matter as much as yours do WITHIN THEIR CONTEXTS. We're arguing about egocentricity and ethnocentricity here.

Oh, I forgot egg noodles with cottage cheese.

"When I say France has better food, I say it objectively not because I like it more. Others do not seem to be using the same standard and that's why we keep arguing. For example I do not eat raw oysters. But that wouldn't keep me from acknowledging their greatness and the French superiority in cultivating them when evaluating their gastronomy." I just read that again. What horseshit. Of COURSE it's because you like it more. Someone who doesn't like it couldn't give a rat's ass about your professed "objectivity." What is this "same standard" business - are you saying that there is one single objective universal standard by which to judge all things culinary? Someone who thinks raw oysters are vile might very well think nothing of your magnanimous view of their superiority. Think about offal - I adore it. You know how many really serious eaters think that it's truly sickening?

Yes, but if you call them fava beans........ If you call 'em fava beans, you'd just be calling a lima bean by the wrong name. Lima is lima and fava is fava.

Of course I understand what you're saying, but in my old age, and having been slaughtered (like the tender little lamb I am) on Chowhound for this very thing, I am trying to be somewhat less egoccentric, ethnoccentric, and arrogant about this idea called an "opinion." Sure, I know with my whole being that Ali's kebabs are the best, objectively, and that DiFara is the best pizza (of its kind) anywhere, and that ain't nobody gonna have a papaya salad like the one at Sripraphai, at least not in this hemisphere. But I am an experienced eater of these foods, in general. I refuse to say that my opinion is more valid *for everyone.* Maybe for those who are as experienced as I am, but for those who have not eaten (or contemplated) these foods as I have, my opinion is meaningless in their context.

Part of the reason that this discussion is problematic is because we're arguing over points that are inherently subjective for each of us. Plotnicki saying "BECAUSE IT'S BETTER" has no real meaning, because, although most of us might agree with him, it is a matter of opinion. There is no winning or losing such an argument. Of course, if the arguing is for the sake of arguing, then argue on.

Kugel. Kugel Kugel and more Kugel.

Except that scrambled eggs with ketchup is not weird. I mean if ubiquitous and common doesn't equal weird, that is.

How about The Great Paella Cookoff for the next potluck?

Perhaps it's much more basic than that. I think the reason we're so drawn to things French, taking food as the example, is simply because of the "permission" France gives for the pursuit of pleasure. Sex, food, art, ideas...it's about pleasure for the sake of pleasure. Hedonism, if you will. Nothing attracts us more.

I'll take a perfectly executed risotto over a great paella any day, truly. Add a mache and radish salad with a simple vinaigrette and that's it for me. Perhaps my favorite meal.

pizza.

Is there a time limit? Let's talk rules and parameters.

Well it doesn't come out as creamy, but it's a lot easier and it's acceptable in a pinch. Do a google search - there are tons of recipes.