sizzleteeth

As per above the two unidentified Gujarati dishes pictured in the betel leaf bowl are respectively: Corn Handvo and Bataka Vada Though please correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh you know I had a guide, even Bourdain has enablers in the places he goes, had I tried to organize some of the traveling I did through Rajahsthan I would have broken down and died in the desert - you don't know the meaning of the words "in the middle of nowhere" until you've been to Madhogarh and Bijaipur and driving in India - even on the highways - could be made into a successful video game. I took a trip with a company out of Australia called Intrepid, they basically give you a "Sherpa" who travels with you from place to place and then sets you loose when you get there - same company I took to Japan. Had I not seen it with my own eyes I would think the same as you - the street food was mostly vegetarian and I ate tons of street food and veggy dishes (the Gujarati was veg for instance). The pork chops were absolutely the best pork chops I ever had, perfectly marinated, perfectly charred, tender - the fat was as good as the meat. That was in Mumbai (Bombay) at a place called Mocambo Cafe, C3A Sir P.M. Road RT Mumbai 400001, Tel: 22870458 / 56065264. Had that with a side of Garlic Pasta with Parmesean and a glass of Viognier Clairette for less than US $12. Could have been that I had been eating Indian food for so long - but that meal and the meal at the Salt Water Grill in Mumbai were absolutely fantastic to this Kentucky boy at that point in time. Though I'd say the same of butter chicken if I was eating pork chops for two weeks. Get this, at the Taj Palace Hotel there was even a SUSHI restaurant, and not just any sushi restaurant - Wasabi by Iron Chef Morimoto - I skipped it because of cost - but it looked great and had a huge menu of both new Japanese and sushi. As for the last comment, I can't agree with that either, I'm not a chef in any traditional sense of the word or an author or really recognized by anyone for anything - and that's just fine with me. Though I have the distinct advantage (or disadvantage depending on your point of view) of looking like a serial killer. Bourdain has better hair.

Thanks Diva, I was in India for about 16 days, more or less 2 days in each place and yes covered tons and tons of ground from early in the morning until late at night inside each destination and overland for hours in jeeps and trains from Delhi to Mumbai then a flight from Mumbai to Panjim. I was pleasantly surprised by the assortment of cuisines that were available everywhere, North Indian, South Indian, West, East - you could get a little something from anywhere just about everywhere in the big cities. As the aforementioned, Punjabi, Rajasthani and Gujarati prevailed but there was Amritsari, Bengali - dishes from Andhra Pradesh, Malabar, Mysore - you name it. As mentioned above the Gujarati meals stood out to me, the Gujarati Thali I had in Ahmedabad was so light and delicate in all it's preparations, night and day from Punjabi - the Kichdhi was fabulous as were these chick pea flour "cornbreads" I couldn't identify with a green chili sauce and dumplings of fried mashed potatoes with corn and a red chili sauce was fantastic - I'd appreciate any help in identifying them - they are pictured here. The cooking classes were spread throughout the trip, the two most mentionable being the one with the teacher "Cutie" at Fort Madhogarh: http://www.nivalink.com/fortmadhogarh/index.html In this class we used dried cow dung to fuel a fire and cooked dough balls directly in the coals. As well as the 6 hour class in Udaipur with a Chef named Shakti whom used to be in the restaurant business but now runs a small spice shop called the Indian Spice Box and has a studio kitchen complete with tilted mirrors in which he holds comprehensive classes, in my class we made 9 dishes in 6 hours - he teaches everything from identifying specific spice mixtures to making the mother sauces that base much Indian cuisine. "When the oil she has floated to the top - then the sauce we know is going...ready". Really cool and funny guy, took us to the markets in Udaipur which are in my pics - he's holding the Pomegranate. Mr. Shakti Indian Spice Box 38 Lal Ghat, Udaipur 313001, Rajastan, India Ph: 0091-294-2483118 Spicebox2001@yahoo.co.in I have to agree and disagree with the last statement. I agree because the vegetable preparations in India are so flavorful and in many cases mask the actual flavor of the vegetables that if you do not find vegetable dishes you like here, then you are probably hopeless. I disagree because contrary to popular belief - meat is everywhere. I had meat in every place and saw more meat than you can imagine, I ate mutton, lamb, chicken, fish and beef (yes, beef). In Jaipur there were tandoori chickens hanging like ducks in Chinatown, butchers with carcasses hanging from hooks - you could easily subsist on meat and never touch a vegetable - which may come as a surprise - it did to me anyway.

Thanks shape, I just try to take pictures of things I see and make them come out like I see them, there were so many things that could have been focused on - mine obviously center mostly around food and trying to capture the beauty. As much as I manage to capture - I still could not do justice to the array of things that I saw - you almost need a camera for every subject. I could have taken thousands.

Thanks, yeah I have to say out of everything I ate while there, Gujarati cuisine stood out to me, perhaps it was the places I ate - but a specific dish in particular called Khichdi was one of the things that I remember most. A mixture of yellow rice and vegetables baked with a topping of yogurt and carmelized onions - delicious.

Just got back last week from a fantastic trip to India. Delhi, Agra, Madhogarh, Jaipur, Bijaipur, Udaipur, Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Goa I have made chapatis, eaten cuisines Rajasthani, Punjabi and Gujarati, seen men with no legs walk down the street by sliding boards in front of them to move their body, cows compete with rickshaws for right of way, Kentucky Fried Chicken at the home of a maharajah and ice cream stands in the middle of the desert. I’ve done my best to capture some of those things and would like to share them with you. Here are a few images to chew on for those interested. The rest can be found here: http://ngray.minusseven.com/india/index.htm My captions are in order so any single photo will be out of context and the caption may make no sense. Be happy to answer any questions - if there are none that's all good too. Thanks.

In the context Busboy describes I believe it's called selective honesty. A type of lying that hides things in plain site by manipulating the truth through means of perception by omitting relevant information that further sheds light on the details of the matter. One of the hardest types to detect. You are given enough information for you to form an opinion and feel as though the information is truthful - and in fact it is - but only partially - if you knew the whole truth you would not come away with the same perception - but you do not inquire further because you have been somewhat satisfied. It is used in countless ways to make things look better than they actually are, I think we're probably all guilty of it in one form or another. Titles and categorical relationships are a good examples, where someone uses the perception of a specific title or overall category to "insert" an association in someone's mind. Sourcing and purchasing are basically the same thing, there are some instances where "sourcing" could be more tedious than "purchasing" and vice versa. Which one implies you actually go out to the markets and hand choose things yourself and which one implies you sit in an office on a phone and order stuff via Fedex - and does it matter?

I suppose as long as my posts are quoted I’m obligated to respond. I would think that Veterinarians and people with first hand experience with the Foie Gras industry would be the people most qualified to make these assessments which is why I imagine both are represented in the group that produced the document - to keep it from becoming slanted to one side – which is why I said it had no appearance of being biased as it teeters back and forth from one side to the other. I don’t think the omission of Geese (which I wouldn’t say are totally omitted as they appear in numerous places throughout, but perhaps omitted from the section you refer to) makes the document invalid as **if** ducks are suffering and geese “are not”….. ducks are still suffering. Yes, I am aware of that – if you’ll look back at my post I stated as much. My rebuttal to you Jennifer was not out of anger (indeed eliciting such a response from me is more difficult than it would seem, I don’t think I’ve said anything on this board out of anger – but it is difficult to ascertain such a thing without someone in your physical presence – so I can see how possibly it could be misconstrued as such). When I read, “Celebrate the consumption of Foie Gras as much as humanly possible” I saw, “force feed as many birds as possible” and “kill as many birds as possible” for no other apparent reason really other than to “get at those who wish to have foie gras banned”. A stance I interpret as extreme and I simply offered an opposite extreme to demonstrate how those words may make someone feel who is against the production of foie gras and is overtly concerned with the welfare of the animals. Joke or not – your words were most likely as offensive to those on the opposite side of your opinion as my words may have been to you. For someone who grew up under the conditions described in one of your current articles of watching animals come home having been killed by hunters in your family and it not sitting well with you when you were young – I find it surprising that you would make such a joke, as you – better than most – understand aspects of the killing and eating of animals – as you have seen your dinner with it’s eyes still intact. The bird’s ability to produce foie gras stems from their ancestry of being a migratory bird, of course they are not now – but they don’t produce foie gras from chickens for a reason – the physiological response to gorging a chicken would, and I’m only hypothesizing, be much different. I grew up on a farm in KY, my father raised Belgian horses and did a lot of “Amish style” farming – we raised pigs and chickens and my grandfather raised cattle, did all sorts of planting. To this day members of my immediate family are farmers of the type that this is their living and only source of income – if the crops have a bad year then they have a bad year. So you are “preaching to the choir” in that respect. So I’m glad to see that you are of the opinion that, though you are at the top of the food chain and do eat animals – domesticated or wild – there is no reason for them to suffer and no reason why they could not live a “reasonably comfortable life”. I will also assume that having said that you might be against anything that contradicts that statement. (edit): SP and grammar

I'll make one last post to offer this link which is one of the most comprehensive scientific documents I've ever seen on the subject - in ways it supports both sides and in ways it says there's not enough information to make determinations about certain things. It's an interesting read either way. Report of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese, Adopted 16 December 1998 http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.pdf http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scah/out17_en.html If nothing else, it has no appearance of being biased one way or the other (though obviously that is not confirmable) and was produced in Europe. {edit:} Though I should note - before you read all 90 some pages that the 12 person panel of professors, scientists, veterinarians etc do reach a conclusion, which would come as no surprise: And one of them inserts a minority opinion statement:

Your points are noted. Though your last paragraph addresses things that I never stated or implied. Anthropomorphism is just like anything else - sometimes it applies and sometimes it doesn't. In your example, obviously a horse is not ashamed of being naked. Though: "He was stabbed through the heart and lay bleeding to death." Applies whether horse or man or duck. We share many qualities with the things living around us and some of those things are universal. With that, I leave you to your discussion.

I’m not here to win any arguments… only to speak my mind. Whether or not I win or bring people to my side is of no consequence - as either way my opinion will remain and my statements will stand until such time as I disagree with them myself. I have respect for you as one of the more intelligent posters on this board in my opinion. I never said something shouldn’t be because it doesn’t exist in nature, that would be a blanket statement to cover all circumstances and you will rarely see me make such a statement in any seriousness – as there are innumerable things to take into account within the existence of anything One that I will make is that everything that is good contains elements of and potential for bad and everything that is bad contains elements of and potential for good – even if those things are not obvious to us. Wheels kill things everyday, as do planes – going back to my second post in this thread, I do not deny nor am I ignorant of my own connection to destruction and the ways in which I support it everyday – it is something I think about often – if not everyday, and it is something that measures my actions. I eat animals everyday and everyday I am thankful for what they have given, whether I speak it aloud or not and everyday I am aware of my own hypocrisy in knowing I would not want to switch places with them. Your statement about it being natural for animals to eat humans and humans to eat animals I agree with and said as much a few posts up. Foie Gras takes something that was given by nature to migrating bird and exploits it to a perverted degree – that is a fact – and I would much rather see someone say, “I know what it is, I understand that it is likely that the birds suffer for it’s creation especially in the last stages and I realize that it is completely unnecessary for it to exist – knowing that I choose to eat it anyway and I do not support it’s production being outlawed”. Than to simply be blind and ignorant or in denial. Whether or not lobsters feel pain, it might be a good idea to kill them quickly just in case, the meat will separate from the shell just as readily and they will taste just as good when cooked sous vide with butter. Whether or not a duck or goose can withstand a tube in it’s throat, being filled to the top with food, growing obese and having it’s liver balloon – it might be a good idea to assume that they suffer for it and be that much more appreciative when you dine on foie gras. Some things exist for a very long time before anyone ever takes a look at it and says, “Hey… is this right?” And sometimes they figure out that it isn’t.

I’m aware of all that Bux, I found nothing ridiculous in the statement “I love Foie Gras”, what I found ridiculous was the notion of making T-Shirts to “celebrate and promote the consumption of foie gras as much as humanly possible”. I’m not anti-foie gras, nor am I an animal rights activist, a vegetarian or anything else of the sort. On the other hand I am not “pro-foie gras” nor do I have any problem with peaceful animal rights activists or vegetarians. Also, if you’ll look back and read my posts my friend, I point out many other things that could be seen as atrocities far beyond foie gras production including points about how other animals are treated and killed. My “duck rape” statement was meant to offend you, I’m glad to know that it did it’s job – as it is a ridiculous extreme – as is “celebrating the consumption of foie gras as much as humanly possible.” People seem so worried about their rights as human beings that it seems that sometimes they don’t even look upon animals as living feeling things – or at least since they are not human – how they feel is of no consequence. I once watched a chef “steep” a lobster to death and when asked if there was any benefit to taking a knife between his eyes so that he might die quickly (a question I already know the answer to), his response was, “I don’t know – I’m not a lobster”. Perhaps you should put yourself in the place of the animals you eat and consider that, if you were them – how would you like to live and die given that you know you will be killed and eaten. Some may think that ridiculous – and that’s fine for them to think – nor will it mean that everything you eat will have die in a humane way – but it makes it so possibly you think of what it must be like for them – even if just for a second. As for foie gras, you cannot deny that it is (and I’m not saying other things aren’t) – an exploitation of something that was not meant for the purpose which it is being exploited for – and also that the deliberate fattening of a fowls liver to 10 times it’s normal size ( a size it would never reach in nature) – would fit within the text book definition of “perversion”. I’m not telling you not to eat it my friend – nor am I saying that I wouldn’t – I’m asking you to call a spade a spade and acknowledge what it is in truth and stop dancing around trying to justify it through means of technical explanation and assumptions about the well being of the exploited. Can you not say that any animal would not be better off left of it’s own accord before dying for your meal – and is it not reasonable to go a step above that and say that a duck on a farm would be better off left without being force fed by a tube until it nearly explodes? Geese run to the tube because they have been conditioned from birth, - not because that is their natural inclination, I'll gladly pay you to allow me to watch you catch a wild goose or duck and attempt to put anything down it's throat. I hope you remember the words “duck rape” for the rest of your life, if for no other reason than to thank the bird under your breath before you dip your knife into it’s liver.

In an equally ridiculous extreme how about this shirt? Foie Gras = Duck Rape Eat whatever you wish, but at least have some respect for the lives that are taken in order to sustain your own. Foie Gras may only be fractionally worse (or better) than other things, cutting cows throats and letting them bleed to death or killing things in the most painful way possible in order to produce "adrenaline rich meat" as an aphrodisiac comes to mind. Turning it into a joke is to disrespect the sacrifice that has been made and the souls that have been taken - at least have some respect for the animals if we cannot or will not choose to let them be.

I'm sorry - you're right - ducks have parts and physiology that are exploitable for this purpose and it probably doesn't physically hurt them as much as it would me. So let me rephrase it. I'm obviously not a woman, but in a comparable vein: "Put me in a cage and limit my movement - but for the love of God don't rape me everyday." I never said that what happens to factory farmed animals is as simple as limiting their movement. My personal preference would be to live my normal life as a wild animal and then be killed quickly, or in absence of that, live on a farm roaming free and eating on my own natural schedule in my own natural way and then be killed quickly - above that the choices become much more difficult to make - do you want to burn to death or be boiled alive .... hmmm - that's a real toughy.

We would all like to think of ourselves as non-advocates of violence, suffering, death or destruction of people, animals or the world in general. The reality, however, is that if you make use of any modern convenience, drive a car, walk on concrete. buy food from a grocery store, wear shoes, get a package delivered, turn a doorknob, use a fork or flush a toilet – you are both directly and indirectly linked to all of the processes that bring these things into being and by proxy all of the processes that support the processes, that support the processes. You can drive a hybrid vehicle, but every time you get a package delivered or buy something that was shipped from anywhere, you support the pollution of the air. You can not eat meat, but every time you buy something from a store that sells meat, you support the deaths of those animals, every time you use a machine you support the machines it took to make those machines, all of the people it took to make the tools to make those machines and everything they spend their paycheck on, all of the land that was stripped to mine the metal to make the machines and on and on and on. We are all inescapable cogs inside wheels inside wheels of support of a destructive machine and we are all guilty – every single one of us. But still there are levels of guilt - there is a huge difference between damaging property and hurting a human or an animal. There is a huge difference between verbal abuse and rape. There is a huge difference between stepping on bugs unknowingly in the grass and stomping an anthill on purpose.. It is not so much that ducks are killed, that is not the issue, the issue is suffering and the level of suffering. Obviously anything that is killed or raised for slaughter is going to suffer to some degree and killing in and of itself may never be able to fit within the definition of “humane” – it is simply a fact of life that humans kill animals and eat them, animals kill animals and eat them, the most advanced of societies kills animals and eats them and the most isolated of tribes kills animals and eats them. That will most likely never change. All I can say is if I was going to be killed, I would like to suffer as little as possible before hand and even within that there are levels of suffering I am willing to accept in return for immunity from others – put me in a cage and limit my movement but for the love of God don’t shove a rod down my throat everyday to feed me and fatten me up before I’m killed. I've eaten Foie Gras in America and in France - so even in the words I just spoke there is hypocrisy. Animal rights activists on the whole aren’t advocating the hurting of humans nor the hurting of humans before animals – on the whole the message is – don’t hurt any living thing and unfortunately since humans are generally treated better than animals to begin with – their tactics can seems as if to say animals are more important. I don’t see that, but trying to stop violence with violence is like trying to stop a fire with gasoline.

Perfect!!! Now I already have my halloween costume for next year. Now I just gotta find a yellow pig.

From the Michelin Website - a Michelin Press release: http://www.michelinman.com/difference/rele...a.html?source=5

Wow - strange - I'd like to see that - all the Michelin Green and Red guides I've ever seen have the blue and white Michelin logo with a "naked" Michelin man. http://images.google.com/images?q=michelin...SO-8859-1&hl=en http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&h...ide&btnG=Search Yes, yes you did - I read your post too fast. BTW I can tell you from personal experience that the Michelin Man is a really nice guy - a friend of mine did a stint on a multi-state tour as the Michelin Man. Despite my poking his ribs here, the Michelin Man (though very white) is partial to Indonesian and Cuban fare, has excellent taste in bourbon, makes mean Mojito - and smokes one hell of a pork shoulder.

Awww. c'mon Robyn - even the Michelin man himself is white - though he is a man made of tires. I would like to have been a fly on the wall in that branding meeting all those years ago... "What we want is an illustration of a man made of tires as our mascot, but we can't have a big black man running around representing us - so..." No offense to you but the word ethnic is so misused to lump things into a category, a use in which it loses it's definition of, "Of or relating to a sizable group of people sharing a common and distinctive racial, national, religious, linguistic, or cultural heritage." - and becomes "anything that isn't made by white people". Though, I suppose when you are on one side of something, everyone tends to describe it in a manner which implies things in this divisive nature - for instance I'm told that in Vietnam - it's "The American War". The thing about this paragraph I've quoted is that, based on this theory, it nullifys the star ratings of all the French restaurants because they are serving "ethnic cuisine" - "outside of their country of origin" - so I guess "In New York terms - they are not worth a trip downtown if you're midtown (or vice versa)." Stick to eating French food in the French neighborhoods. Edit: BTW - before anyone says, "You are implying that only people of a given ethnicity are qualified to evaluate food of their culture".... no, I'm not - nor do I believe that - it's just a joke.

So the million dollar question is – how do you take a guide who’s qualifications aren’t relevant to much of anything other than French Haute cuisine that has a model based upon a single standard that obviously measures everything against French haute cuisine and seems to be of the opinion that French cooking, French techniques and French or in a broader sense Western notions of luxury are the pinnacle standard – take it out of it’s homogenized element and apply it to a city with a diversity that rivals any place on earth? Very gently I guess…. careful not to break it. There is other food in France besides French food btw, as I’m sure you are aware – that Paris alone harbors all types. In fact one of my favorite meals there has been at Yugaraj, which I’m not saying is worthy of stars by whatever standard – but rather to use it as a tool to make the point that even if the criteria was published and Yugaraj checked every single thing off the list to meet it – what do you think the chances of an Indian restaurant in Paris getting 3, 2 or even 1 star? I’d say little to none –and do you want that same bias to be applied to New York, Chicago, San Fran? (Though I believe there is a 1 star Indian restaurant in England.) It is this very point that I’ve been trying to make – that the implied and otherwise unknown criteria are irrelevant to NY and America as a whole, because it is so diverse - and I truly believe things would be seen in a whole different light should a detailed list of criteria be published. Which makes the guide exponentially less useful here than it might be in France – if useful at all.

Damn...... you got me. (Grabs heart... spins around and falls to the ground... ) And since I've been gotten - I'm forced to respond... with my last breath. Especially since what you just said - I pretty much said already within a post where I stepped back from my initial words and agreed with another poster. What you fail to point out is that these other "ratings systems" apply at least some of the top top honors to different types of restaurants - for instance the times gives Masa (a Japanese restaurant) - 4 stars and not only that they rate many many more restaurants - Zagat what 2100? Also, things like The Times offers their rating - but also - side by side - offers reader ratings and allow you to write your own review. But honestly - star ratings are meaningless to me - I haven't agreed or disagreed with the list because I can't - I don't live in NY and I haven't been to all these places to be able to make that type of assessment - the main thing I've questioned here is methods and delivery. Here's the scenario... A guide whom has the political power of a dictator in Europe and more importantly in France comes to America and starts rating restaurants, they start with NY and the only 4 restaurants with very top honors - in the entire city..... are French. I love France, been to France, love French food, have many friends in Paris - if that is truly the case I would have no problem with it at all. What I'm asking Oak is... is that truly the case.. and if so - how was that conclusion drawn? So let me apologize for my earlier post - which wasn't so much a ridicule of the guide as it was a smart ass reply to the quote in the post about them rating restaurants by their taste alone in exclusion of all others. Also let me apologize for the Power Puff Girls reference (symbolizing the power of the matriarch) in which I mocked the star rating system with Mojo Jojo Smileys in a metaphor comparing the guide to the arch enemy of the Power Puff Girls who just happens to be an evil monkey hell bent on taking over townsville. "Elizabeth...... I'm comin' to see ya!!!"

Michelin makes beautiful maps – especially of Europe – so insanely detailed it’s incredible. I would have never made the drive from Avignon to Venasque without one . I am thankful that they and many others provide very detailed descriptive directories detailing where things are, what things are, how much they cost, what one might expect to see – otherwise I may never have seen any of these places or be able to choose where to go. That is not in dispute. What is in question is the star rating system of those places and how those conclusions are drawn. The printed directory in and of itself is an achievement that has little parallel as far as level of detail goes but things of this nature have already largely been replaced by websites and soon GPS electronic navigation systems and broadband wireless connections in your car will make printed guides fairly obsolete, and within these online systems there are no uniform standards, implied or otherwise. Most simply pull their data (maps and all) from central sources who sell such information. The political ramifications of a Michelin star rating vs. any other type of rating system, because of it’s influence and ability to change the climate within a given locale is exactly why it needs to be reformed, it’s criteria published and if nothing else – set up electronically in maybe a blog style format so that comments can be made by regular people within the same page as the reviews. As I said before – if it wasn’t so “important” – it wouldn’t matter so much, but it’s closed door policy needs to be pried open. In my opinion of course. With that, I'm done.

I rate that post 3 Mojo Jojo Smiley's

Michelin: "We make tires and maps..... oh, and determine the best restaurants in the world... because we can - who cares what you think - you just eat there - what we think is more important."

Again I would say, what is the criteria? Why don't they just publish it? Seems like it would lead to many more restaurants attempting to aspire to it and understanding why they were given what they were given in the end - even if it is subjective. Consensus of how many people and who are they? If it is indeed a consensus why isn't each individual review included? I'm not familiar enough with the internal operation of any printed guide to be able to say if anyone else is doing it - I still stand by the Ebay model of allowing regular people (who have actually had the experience) to rate things on their experiences and averaging the total to determine the overall rating - which can run into the hundreds - if not thousands of individuals. I'm sure there's a hell of alot more than 507 restaurants in NY, how is that they determine where they go and where they don't? Press? Public opinion? Again - publish the criteria. Those criteria are pretty clear to me - if I keep my ideas clear and organized, dig deep into my subject without ripping off another work and site all of my sources I have a pretty damn good chance of getting a good grade. Those don't seem like soft criteria and the only thing that would make them so is the teacher's own idea of what each of those things means - so as Doc says, if you know your reviewer, you can taylor your work to his or her ideas of what those things are if you want to do such a thing to obtain a good grade. Tayloring your work to someone else's ideas of what is "good" is what creates all the patterns of repetition and why when someone does something a different way - they stick out. Then people accept that idea as "good" and the cycle starts all over. "Innovation has always been directly linked to segregation, most people tend to fear what they don't understand - but when balance comes from what was initial disorientation - what was once 'insane' all at once becomes 'in demand'...". There's a difference between doing what you want to do and giving people what they want to see- as most people are going to inteperet anything they don't like as bad - regardless of whether it is in reality or not. I have friend who loves good food, but hates Indian food because she says it "tastes like dirt" - sentiments such as this is why you see so many restaurants taylor their food to the american palette - is that a good thing or not - I dunno - in some ways yes - in some ways no, but I certainly don't want her rating Indian restaurants for me. Since no one knows the criteria the assessment is based upon, no one has the ability to challenge that assessment based on the criteria - all they have is their personal opinion and whether or not they agree - and the vast vast vast majority of those who would have even that ability - are not here to do so. First off - things like that are based numbers, on stats and "who is winning" - most people aren't going to have a losing team in their top 10 - even if the team itself is a good team. I'll probably get murdered for saying this but it's like here in Chicago - all of a sudden everybody loves the Whitesox - because they won. People who had their Cubs memorabilia up switched it out with White Sox banners - I don't think it's a bad thing to support the winners - but that is a game - this is not (or it's not suppose to be) - but I would be profoundly more satisfied to see the criteria and the stats - just like I was happy when they started showing the scores on Iron Chef - instead of just saying - "And it's the Iron Chef....". I wouldn't agree with recognize - I would agree with perceive.