Nathan

oakapple: I can't imagine why I don't think anyone is arguing that Bruni's statement was logically sound or that it actually reflects they way he rates restaurants. We were arguing over what he actually said, not over whether what he said was accurate. Cheez. I need a life.

If it's still the old menu -- I think the apps and "midcourses" were better than the entrees. The quark was amazing. I think I have a review up this thread.

It was very good the last time I was there -- which was before the chef change. Who knows? Maybe it's still good.

Sneakeater, I agree.

considering that this is a birthday brunch, it's pretty clear that something fancy would not be amiss. I doubt cost is the primary factor either. thus, I think only Perry Street, Eleven Madison Park, Wallse (good call Daniel) and possibly Balthazar fit the bill.

oakapple: "Even on that understanding, his actual ratings can't be squared with the statement." As I already noted, this is both true and irrelevant to the argument. Pan: Word.

Todd: Agreed.

Oh, I think he did mean the following: "Here are three factors. Those factors dovetail with how excited I get about a restaurant. Therefore, my stars, which are predicated upon those factors, dovetail with my excitement level." What he didn't say (or mean) was: "I pick my stars based on my excitement over the restaurant." "What Bruni wrote was sloppy, and not really well thought out. Bruni is a man of the people; he doesn't write with tortured logic that you need to be a lawyer to parse." Actually that's exactly why his words do need to be parsed. If he wrote like a lawyer there wouldn't be a problem.

It does and I agree. My sole point here was merely that you and FG were mocking Bruni for something that he didn't actually say (or even mean).

Sneakeater, see my edit. I've never said that the statement was accurate. Only that you were mocking him for saying something he didn't say. You can, of course, mock him quite easily for what he actually did say.

Look, I read it as simply: "Here are three factors. Those factors dovetail with how excited I get about a restaurant. Therefore, my stars, which are predicated upon those factors, dovetail with my excitement level." That's what he said. The fact that it was an inaccurate statement is irrelevant. edit: See, I think you're focussing on the fact that this statement is inaccurate...and therefore can't be what he's saying. But that doesn't follow at all. We've put a heck of a lot more thought into this than I'm sure he did for one paragraph in a blog post. (In actuality, I think he determines his stars by a combination of food, service, ambience, price and personal excitement. But that's not what he was saying in this post.)

Not at all. You and FG were busy mocking one sentence -- "The number of stars chart ever greater degrees of excitement" -- and ignoring the prior one.

"This isn't corporate drafting. It's not like you can take any term and define it as meaning something, however fanciful or unusual, and then that's what it'll mean for purposes of this one particular document." But that's exactly what he did. "Nor could he mean, "that metric actually accurately describes how I determine how excited I am to return to a place" -- you know that last one because his reviews, as written, belie it." If I were to speculate, I would say that's what he meant. In fact, I'm pretty darn certain that's what he meant. Cause that's an excellent paraphrase of what he wrote. But he didn't think it through. This was a blog post, right? Probably written in haste.

FG: I meant "illiterate" as in incapable of reading the English language. The words are there. I've quoted them repetitively. Either I can read or I can't. Sneakeater: I'm not arguing for a or b at all. As for c, I'm asserting that his use of the word "excitement" was incorrect. I am saying that what the rest of his words clearly convey is exactly what he's saying. You and FG are fixating on one word. I'm fixating on the other 30.

either this says what it says, or I'm fundamentally and functionally illiterate: "take into consideration all of those elements....to come to a conclusion about how excited...."

"The point is, using a term like "excited to return" makes it seem like you think reviews are completely subjective, with no obligation to take account of existing standards or possible differences in taste. And that's just irresponsible." It would be irresponsible if that's what he had said. But he didn't. He explicitly stated that the stars are based on food, ambience and service. You guys are seizing upon the one incongruous word (and it was an unfortunate choice since it clearly confused even some very intelligent people) and ripping it entirely out of context.

"In other words, the term "excitement" has zero meaning. The sentence could have been written without it." Correct. "Or maybe the common-sense reading of Bruni's comments make more . . . sense:" Your reading is only possible if you only read the second sentence and ignore the first one.

"The star ratings take into consideration all of those elements, giving primary importance to food, to come to a conclusion about how excited I would be to return to the restaurant." res ipsa loquitur

the definition that he gave for "excitement" (the sum of food, service and ambience) is not the usual one, correct. but the critiques of the following sentence ("The number of stars chart ever greater degrees of excitement.") have all been inapposite because he gave his unusual definition of "excitement" in the previous sentence. So what he actually said was "the higher my rating for food, service and ambience, the more stars I give", not "I give more stars to places I get really excited about it." edit: this is what happens when a couple litigators argue about food.

In the visceral sense I agree. But what he says is obviously what really happens. Otherwise, S&T would have a higher rating than ADNY. The point is that in that quote Bruni wasn't really talking about "excitement", he was explicitly talking about a metric of food, service and ambience and then used "excitement" as a signifier for the sum of those parts.

I had brunch at Perry Street a month ago and it was emphatically not the full lunch menu then. Nor did they offer a prix fixe. If they've changed that -- I'll be stumbling out of bed at one a lot on Saturdays.

in other words, whatever gets me excited (Rachel Weisz) or you excited (Waffle House, Blaus Gans) is absolutely irrelevant to what gets Bruni excited -- namely, food, service and ambience.

Alright, maybe I'm illiterate, because when I read the following it says nothing like whatever you're all reading him as saying: "food versus service versus ambience. The star ratings take into consideration all of those elements, giving primary importance to food, to come to a conclusion about how excited I would be to return to the restaurant." Either I'm illiterate or the lot of you are completely misreading him. Nowhere does Bruni say that his "excitement factor" is either a criteria or the only criterion for judging a restaurant. He says that his level of excitement is simply a sum of food, service and ambience. Please tell me which part of the English language I failed to learn in grammar school.

I had an absolutely fabulous lunch here yesterday. Its too bad that its near no one's work (unless you're part of the 50% of the WV that either works from home or doesn't work at all) because this is the best lunch bargain in NY. If you do have a free weekday afternoon there is no excuse not to eat here. Started with the borscht amuse they've been serving for a couple months. It's fine but nothing more. 2 plates and dessert for $24. additional plates are $12. Bring your appetite. Both of my plates were entrees. Literally. Began by splitting an additional plate of king oyster mushroom carpaccio with avacado and some sort of chili oil and thyme. Quite good. This was the only portion that was appetizer sized. Had grilled gulf shrimp in a lemongrass broth with ramen. Served with chopsticks. Six large, perfectly seasoned, perfectly grilled shrimp. The not-too-robust lemongrass broth and simple noodles were perfect accompaniments. I guess this could have been pushed up with one more ingredient, but sometimes simplicity is bliss. Followed with the beef tenderloin. A good six or seven ounce filet. Excellent quality. Cooked perfectly to my medium rare spec. A beef broth was poured over it at the table. Not really necessary but it didn't detract (which I guess is the point of using beef broth). Accompanied by mushrooms and some sort of root vegetable. Both were delicious in the broth. Dessert was chocolate pudding with candied violets (a riff on pop rocks). I'm not a dessert person but this seemed to be quite good. My dad had the rice-cracker crusted tuna in a sriracha emulsion (this has been on the menu at Perry Street from its inception) followed by the chicken. What looked like a full half chicken, one part roasted and one part poached. Looked pretty good actually. The room was 80% empty the entire time. I don't get it.

you're misreading Bruni. The quote from Bruni says that those criteria determine how excited he gets. In fact, he explicitly states that he has metric, weighted toward food. (I realize that the first sentence says otherwise. But the following sentence contradicts that. And it's clearly the operative one.) That metric determines how excited he gets. That is exactly what he says above.