jhlurie

Theoretically I think you can "larb" just about any meat. Heck, I've even seen a "Veggie Larb", not that I'd want to eat it. More Larb talk...

Grilled? Grilled? Grilled? No Grilled. Fried. It's what Chick-Fil-A is famous for. Bad for you, good tasting. Ah, whatever. The Grilled there isn't bad either. It's just not the reason to specifically seek CFA out!

"Sichuan Wonton w. Red Oil" isn't the most common dumpling, but I've seen them on and off for many years. The Grand Sichuan International on the west side of Manhattan (9th Ave. & 51st St.) that a lot of eGullet people frequent always has them, for example.

Quiznos is okay if you stick to ingredients which work with their "process". Mind you, their competition in the sandwich making fast food market is pretty piss poor. That "Jared" is a real moron.

Damn, you've uncovered the heart of our evil plot... hook 'em with "Dinner" and reel 'em in here.

Let me insert a disclaimer here. While the subject here obviously buys into discussion of rumored cases of celebrities stiffing wait staff, without a media report attached (and even in most cases with such a media report) we'd like to remind people to include a silent "allegedly" (at least mentally, while reading them) at the end of most of these comments.

Have you had Boylan's Red Birch Beer?

Perhaps it's a bit cheesy, but I could see a meal (and accompanying serviceware) designed around the four elements--earth, air, water and fire. Somebody has probably already tried it, minus the appropriate serviceware.

It would actually bother me if the artistic aspect was the primary consideration. But Chef's explanation (and well... frankly just looking at them in context--with food on them) makes it clear that' this isn't the case. They look "good" as a side effect of being both functional and innovative. "Form follows function"--that's a pretty basic design philosophy that "traditional" art types (and I include a lot of modern art people in that) don't always understand. It's the kind of beauty you find on drafting boards, and maybe only incidentally later on in museums. Oh Martin, by the way, are we slowing down your website yet?

Egad, that looks good. And rice vermicelli and steak together? Yeah... I can get behind that.

Heh. This discussion DOES get me wondering if customized "dish washing" equipment has to follow.

I have to confess to being one of the people who had some fun at the expense of wd-50 (although I liked much of what I was served), but Chef G's service pieces seem to make a lot more sense to me. His own explanation is that they are "based on function as the priority as opposed to aesthetics". And I think he's right. The fools are the ones who are giving aesthetics such free reign that function gets lost.

Chef, I'm somewhat stunned by all of this. A word like "original" doesn't even begin to cover it. What's great about this is that because form follows function here, in some ways your explanations are unnecessary (although still quite interesting--especially the "story" behind each piece).

Most Of These And I did a search too! We get variations on this topic all of the time. I made one myself recently, but focused on the pitchmen instead of the commercials themselves. Another thread around focuses on the jingles. There's a lot of crap out there no matter HOW you stack it up. I mean, "Uncle Nick" the character from the Olive Garden sucks, offends, and irritates me, but so does the rest of the commercial as well. "Dr. Angus", from the Burger King commercials REALLY pisses me off, but I can see that minus the slimy portayal of him, the commercial might actually be amusing. The little "I'm loving it" song in the recent vintage McDonald's commercials get me heated, but I'm not particularly angry at any of the people who appear IN the commercials. So there are many ways for them to be bad.

I also challenge anyone to find "blogging" as stimulating as the best we have here. Of course, our "foodblogs" are a slightly different format--but that leads to some pretty interesting results. When people make those blogs elsewhere on the net, they are basically "vanity" things. Most blogs are occasional commitments, where your best and most carefully planned endeavors are prettied up and broadcast out to the world. The eGullet blogs bring a new perspective. These are by people who don't have either the nature or time to commit to an ongoing but occasional blog, but who feel they have something worthwhile to say on a more intense (but compressed) stage. The buy-in is one week--a mere WEEK of their lives--but it has to be a total commitment for that week. The result, I think, is more honest. Sure, they often plan special meals for the week, and sure they often push their own limits to show off. That's human nature. But the combination of the short time frame, and the insistence that they tell us about EVERY meal in that period (no matter how mundane), is unique and refreshing. We toyed with the idea of changing the name to "Weekly Food Diary" so people wouldn't confuse them with "blogs" like "Walker NY Eats". But "blog" is so ubiquitous a word, it's tough to change. Not that there's anything wrong with "normal" blogs--they are just less intense. In fact, one of our REALLY long-term goals is to try and construct some kind of directory of these sites, but we've been waiting for some changes in our board software which will accommodate that before we steam ahead with that. Cooking With Amy is kind of cool. I'm also always kind of amused by the Frost Street blog, because this guy is a lawyer who's trying to build his creds as a Foodie, and I can't help but think of our own "Fat Guy" Steven Shaw--who's kind of living the dream this guy is still working on. Also, and I mean this with all my heart: Fuck Corporate Groceries. No, I mean that's what the blog is called--I'm not just saying that for the kick of being crude. Heh. And I wonder how Pizza obsessed you have to be to always have time for a Slice. EDIT - I swear. I wrote the plug for "Cooking With Amy" without even seeing who started this thread. Since I enjoy Amy's work, I'm overjoyed she's here. Heck, even my follow-up with Frost Street was a coincidence--I literally just flipped through my Bookmarks and picked those two out in that order.

There's actually eGullet precedent. Fat Guy's blog certainly wasn't absent of the presence of his wife Ellen Shapiro, and slkinsey (Sam to his enemies!) is a matched set with bergerka (the lovely and talented Kathleen). Of course, these blogs have gotten a lot more ambitous since those early days, back when we had no image uploading capability. Thank for this guys, it's always a kick to see this perspective.

There's already a place equipped to do this. It's called McArby's. Or maybe it's McSubway or McBlimpie, I don't know.

I kind of do too. They are kind of like little meat crisps. This says the Fatburger is at 286 Washington Street, by the way. I kind of sort of know where that is. Well, at least I could find it.

Whatever the original intention of this thread was, it has aparently become about the PROCESS of the discussion instead of a furtherance of it. Until we can get that out of our heads, I'm locking this topic.

This is one of the great mysteries of China 46. The food, in a word, kicks ass. It has publicity galore, great reviews, wonderful prices, and a location that while a bit scary looking is easy to get to (at least for Bergen, Hudson, Passaic, Essex and Rockland counties, as well as Manhattan, The Bronx and Queens). Some of this can be blamed on the dragging effects from the SARS paranoia of previous years, but not all of it. The only thing I can think of is that people aren't willing to travel as far for Chinese food as for other kinds. Local neighborhoods in both New York and New Jersey are flooded with outright disgusting, or barely adaquate, Chinese food, and simple numbers and a lack of perception that it CAN be better is enough of a factor to cause this. Another issue is that China 46 isn't "upscale". Of course, if Cecil closed this location and opened another restaurant with twice the prices and twice the rent to cover, he'd be banking on drawing people who he has no sureity would travel, and he'd lose a loyal local clientele in the process. Really, simply, more people need to tell more friends about it, and reassure them that it's worth the trip to this scary looking diner-like building in front of this scary looking trucker motel (still scary even after a recent rennovation). Also, in combination with a shopping trip to a place like Han Ah Reum, in either nearby Hackensack or Ridgefield, it's a slam dunk.

Right. I agree with this entirely, despite my proclamation that dietary laws are bullshit. You have a social responsibility as a host which has NOTHING to do with your own belief system, and even less to do with some kind of organized religious effort at food tyranny. However the balance swings the other way if your guests haven't informed you beforehand of their limitations. They can't assume your know, and if they do--at least in my mind--the responsibility moves back onto their shoulders. The host, I think, also has a responsibility to not push at his guest's food limitations. I still say you can eat what you want, but "yummy, yummy you don't know what you are missing" type of comments would be crass. Back on the guests' side, I'd say they also have a responsibility to not make unreasonable demands, and to express their concerns as courteously as they expect them to be fulfilled. With kosher laws, for example, I could see where the resentment might form if someone starts grilling you about how many sets of dishes you have, and where they came from. But I think that a guest with those concerns, who didn't want to be annoying, would simply suggest paper plates in a matter-of-fact manner instead of giving you the third degree. To me, the unifying principal behind each of these "responsibilities" is courtesy. Isn't that supposed to be a requirement for both hosts AND guests?

While I understand his general objection, and heck, even agree with the idea that a "least common denominator" approach is wrong, I think we need to keep in mind that villainizing ALL people who keep to strict dietary restrictions isn't the way to go either. Certainly, I think as individuals we have the right to choose who and what to serve, but I also don't think we are in a position to properly judge a mindset we don't share. Jackal's post also assumes that the actions of a host who might want to make a guest feel comfortable are somehow deliberate extremist actions seeded by those visitors. To me that seems a bit absurd. Personally I think dietary laws are bullshit. But not only am I not going to impose that belief on others, I'm also inclined to look the other way as long as their restrictions aren't forced down my throat. That would be the dictatorship Jackal refers to, not some innocuous gesture of hospitality by a host. Even if by necessity I AM that host, I'll have whatever the heck I want on MY plate, but respect what they don't want on theirs. This, to me, is not an issue of personal freedom--it's an issue of ettiquette.

Here's what I'm going to do. Instead of locking or deleting this topic, I'm going to make ONE, count with me, ONE appeal for reason first. This is a food website. Occasionally on this website we talk about things that aren't politically correct, but at the very least they are within the province of "food discussion". Moral judgements, pro or con, aren't irrelevent or against our rules but discussion of them in a confrontational manner IS. Inflammatory language towards entire ethnic groups or nationalities is also a breach of our rules, but in an effort to avoid pulling this topic apart like a roast chicken to extract all of the references now made to it, I'm going to leave this as a warning instead. If someone says something you disagree with violently enough to risk violating the eGullet User Agreement, then take a step back. In other words, ignore them. If you can't make a reasoned argument, then don't make one at all. And if you quote someone or directly refer to something they said? Be aware that if THEY violate our rules and we are forced to delete their post, yours goes too--no matter what side of the argument you are on. ONE warning. This is me wearing my unhappy moderator hat, so I'm being a lot less diplomatic than I usually am here.

I'm going to be proactive and give a warning before anything happens in this thread which we might regret. There is to be NO comparitive religion talk whatsoever unless it pertains DIRECTLY to the food-related topic discussed above--documentation of the roles of particular foods in particular religions We aren't asking this to squash anyone's freedom of expression. As long as you are on topic, and remain respectful, civil and within the bounds of decorum set by our User Agreement, please feel free to express whatever opinion you want. But please remember that this is eGullet.com and not eReligion.com. We've got to stick with the food. Also, this topic is very close to another recent topic. At this point, I'm not going to merge the topics, because this topic is ABOUT the rules and the other one is about instances where people ignore them... but please be careful to try and avoid overlap. Also, an unfortunate consequence of such similar topics is that often people state something is one thread and then get angry in the other one when someone doesn't seem to have read their posting in the first location. So let's try and be aware of that as well.

That number actually doesn't even include "Guests"--that's people who either haven't logged in or who read here but don't post. Friday afternoons are, I think, typically low-traffic for eGullet, but I'm sure this topic will be busy.