Adam Balic

But you can't dispute that the standard in food is based on what people like to eat. Hey, I don't dispute this, that's your job, if the what people like to eat of some people doesn't agree with your what people like to eat.

But you can't dispute that the standard in food is based on what people like to eat. All the empirical evidence does is show why they like to eat it. The standard is always tied to humans and how they function. I think one of the problems in this discussion (and I am not a participant) is that S.P. is not using the word empirical in the way that it is generally used. What people like to eat is a bit of empirical evidence. Empirical does not mean scientific -- it just means to do with experience rather than theory. Hey, no fair, you stole my punch line! Slowly, but surely I lured the beast into the open, away from his usually protective covering of 'better opinion' and 'expertise', I confuse him with silliness, about to deliver the coup de grace (I am not without pity, I allow him to die as he lived - Frenchly), then you pop in. A common problem.

edit: me dumb-ass. I though it was Wilfrid making a joke. But it is real. Steve - Yes Steve, the problem is when experts with 'better opinions' take their fancy tomato tasting learning and then decide what the correct level of sugar in a rabbit is. This is obviously, crazy talk.

No, dining is about better opinions remember? There is no absolute truth. It's like evaluating art, movies, etc. It's all about opinions. Unless you are prepared to admit there is an absolute truth to it and things either taste good or they don't? I don't see how you can have it both ways. Obviously there are better opinions. The best ones are based on empirical evidence.

Prof. any truth in this? Could put Plontnicki on the ropes.

Didn't we discredit this experiment some time ago? I think is was 'Well they couldn't have been experts in the first place' and 'Yes. Steve'.

I've been trying to teach you but you're resisiting. Well you didn't come through with the seed-corn cash for my Ortolan farm project.

You know on thinking about it further, I realized that this point is what is wrong with this thread. In fact, it's the underlying theme of where we go wrong on all of these debates. The fact of the matter is that when eating, better opinions are worth a million times more then esoteric scientific facts. That's because eating is not a science, it is a craft like cooking is. It starts out with the premise that there is nothing that is perfect, but there are more and less perfect expressions of things. That is the standard we need to impose when discussing food. How blue food dye makes us think red food tastes doesn't have much of a concequence to a discussion about dining. Cripes Steve, now you sound like Pumpkino! Any you have the cheek to talk to me about moving peas. No pea is safe around you. Empirical evidence is always very good. Information based on empirical evidence is very good. Opinion on subject X, based on experience of subject Y, is just silly. Even if you call it a 'better opinion'.

The palate is in the mind Steve. You comprimise the Mind, you can comprimise the palate. The trick is to do all that clever stuff Fatguy spoke about and to block out the fluffy yellow chicks. Well there are only so many first edition comics in the world. Seriously, I would like to be a millionaire. I would be very good at it.

Petrus candleholders make a place look like a Dot.com millionaires lounge room. Try Ch. Le Pin for candleholders that say 'I can splash it around and yet not look vulgar, I hip am I?'.

Exactly. But, this thread is about the 'dining experience', if you drank it at Daniels out of a cheap-arse-my-aren't-we-the-south-of-france-water-tumbler would you have enjoyed it more? Proberly, not. If you drank it out of a tumbler and then drank the Chinon out of fine stemware, which would you enjoy the more? The Petrus correct? So is the '75 Petrus in a tumbler compared to the Pertus in good stemware 'better' then the '75 Petrus in a tumbler compared to the Chinon in decent stemware?

What about if the waiter has squeaky shoes, frayed cuffs, and leers? Would this cancel out anything in diner one's tasting of the snipe that was brought to it by the server's comment? Would it then be equivalent to diner two's if the waiter did not have squeaky shoes or frayed cuffs or a leer? Hee hehe. Welcome to 'complication' city.

One million to one is still more valid then 'I think it is so, so it must be so'. Don't drink the Pertus, it looks to 'new money' now all those bankers are swilling it down. Maybe ask the wine chap to decant it into a empty bottle of Chinon or something, after all the presentation will have no bearing on the taste.

Actually, were the scientists go wrong is trying to base a judgement on facts, drawn from conclusions made from observation, when opinion and hand waving carries so much more weight.

'raw' as in 'procuitto crudo', verses 'procuitto cotto'. Both are 'cured', one is 'raw', one is 'cooked'. I eat both. If the cotechino has not been par-cooked for sale it will require more then 45 minutes of cooking. Not, to 'cook' it, but to break down the collagen to gelatin and develop the flavour/texture. I cook my Ragu for more then 45 minutes for the same reason. Robin - I'm sure it's fine, but if you die don't blame me.

Cotechino is basically a boiling sausage. It contains saltpetre (hence the pinkness of the meat when cut). This is the "cured" bit. At least in the parts of Northern Italy (Chianti/Florence/Siena mostly) where I have stayed the normal everyday sausages contain saltpetre, so they are 'cured' (again the meat cooks pink), but they are still 'raw/un-cooked' you can either cook them like regular British type sausages or you can hang them up to dry out and eat them raw like salami, which is what they now are. Some of my relatives like to get the 'raw', un-dried out sausage and spread it on bread like pate. It tastes fine, but parasites do worry me. Cotechino and Zampone are much the same. The cotechini that I have eaten are not only wrapped in pigs skin (or more commonly pig gut) but contains pieces of cut up pig skin. It is the slow cooking of the sausage that allows the collagen in the pigskin to breakdown to gelatin. The gelatin gives the dausage its 'mouthfeel'. Fourty-five minutes is not enough time to break down the collegen to gelatin, unless it is a very small sausage or the sausage is pre-cooked as is very common in Italy. In this case it is just a warming though process, which takes about fourty-five minutes. Here is a link to the preparation of Cotechino and Zampone and cooking instructions/times per pound etc. Cotechino & Zampone

Zampone is the real deal. Cotechino is the version. The stuffed pigs trotter represents the purse, lentils the money. I brought one back to the UK and cooked it for some friends. Nearly had a mass walk out when I served it up in all its jellied glory.

Stuffing is basically Salami mixture, is cured. Most cotechino/zampone sold around new years eve are pre-cooked and vacuum packed. Instructions mostly read: Simmer for fourty minutes in plastic bag. ie. no delicious juices for the lentils. If you are lucky enough to find a butcher that has made his own (rare in Chinati) they will tell you to simmer it for two hours.

Cotechino con lenticchie is for tourists. Zampone con lenticchie is the real deal.

Smen made tradionally by Moroccon Berbers is seasoned with herbs etc and stored to age. The ageing develops the flavour. The more flavour the less you have to use. As butter was a precious commodity (energy source) only well-off people could afford to age there Smen for any lenghth of time, so having the oldest, stinkiest Smen is a status symbol. Or so I have read.

Well, I'm afraid I don't agree at all.

All silly arguments are fantastic. They are fun. It's only serious arguments that aren't fantastic. Also, argument took place in a vinyard in Australia, while sitting in the sunshine, drinking wine and eating excellent food, after a day of picking grapes for some friends. Not something that you can do in Britian I guess, the chance of decent weather, food and booze all at the same time is just to small.

I like Fruitarians, they are silly. I once had a fantastic argument with a fruitarian lady. I put forward the view that as most chicken eggs were not fertilized, there was no conflict with the Fruitarian philosophy of not destroying (potential) life, so they could eat chicken eggs. She stupidly argued back (sucker) that eating chicken eggs was not OK, but I counted that it was just a question of marketing. Chicken eggs = Wrong. "Cackle Berries" = OK. In the end I pointed out that as a conventional Fruitarian she might find here self in the same position as Persephone and accidently consume some seeds and therefore, like Persephone, condemming herslef to Fruitarian Hell. She looked sad about this so I suggested that she only eat bananas as they were infertile tripliods, so no issues with seeds and infact, several groups of people ate nothing but bananas (well, bananas and the occasional goat). This made her happy, so she was then going to eat nothing but bananas in the future. Always happy to help.

Sure Wilfrid sure. We just all need to agree on the cheese/wine to be tasted. Should take, er, five or six months to organise this?