Jaymes

But for breakfast, do try a St. Louis Slinger at one of the many great diners. You just order whatever is your favorite breakfast plate - maybe eggs over easy, bacon, sausage, hash browns, whatevever. And then they sling chili overall. Sounds awful, but it's very, very tasty.

Don't know about NJ, but understand that in some locales, exceptions to the 'no smoking' rule indeed are made for single-owner restaurants, with the understanding that there will never be an employee hired. If even one employee is hired, the no smoking rules are automatically applied. The rationale is that the 'smoking thing' could be used as a ruse to not hire someone that otherwise is qualified. In other words, the owner could say that they didn't hire a certain person only because that person was a non-smoker when, in fact, the owner didn't like the race/gender/sexual orientation/age/whatever of the employee. So, if you own and operate the establishment by yourself, you can do whatever you like regarding smoking, going on the same theory as "I've got a coal mine in my backyard and I don't need no stinkin' oxygen tank." It's the employee thing that makes the difference. Although again, this doesn't seem to be the case for NJ. Just offering it as an example to Daniel that in some jurisdictions, anyway, it is about the employees.

I'll give you the barbecue. But that's it. There is good, plain white bread, you know, for hotdogs, burgers, sandwiches and stuff. I mean, it doesn't go straight from Wonder bread right to 7-Grain, with a brief stopover at crusty. There are other options. Homemade sandwich bread has soft crusts, as do sandwich breads from many bakeries, and Pepperidge Farm sliced Italian makes good sandwiches. I guess it's all in what you grew up with. My grandmother owned a restaurant, and they baked white bread for sandwiches, toast, etc. I never even had a bite of what she called "that ol' cotton bread" until I was about nine or ten years old. I'll never forget that sensation. You can get good, plain, white bread that has at least SOME texture, and doesn't just disintegrate into gummy Elmer's white glue in your mouth.

I loved this post. Very thoughtful and insightful. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Perfect. Thank you all for your thoughts. Hand blender it is.Um...mixer. Too late for me to edit, but I meant "hand mixer." As opposed to an immersion/stick blender. But I think you figured it out.

This is the answer to your question. You need the hand blender. The immersion blender is a very nice, and handy, luxury. You already know everything that the hand blender does, and the immersion blender won't do a lot of it. But I love my immersion blender and use it for soups, gravies, hot chocolate and other hot liquids, which you can blend right in the pan; and some drinks, like milk shakes, which you can blend right in the glass. I also use it for the kind of quick blending for which I would otherwise use a whisk (or sometimes even a fork), like stirring the egg yolks and key lime juice into the Eagle Brand milk. It's a very handy tool, and you can find inexpensive ones for $15-25 (like mine) that work just fine. But it's definitely a supplement to the hand blender, and not a replacement.

And my dad's favorite snack is cold cereal and ice cream. A big bowl of cereal, several scoops of vanilla ice cream, and then some sort of fruit scattered over the whole thing. Sometimes for breakfast, sometimes for late-night snacks. The kiddie type of sugary cereal never appealed to me. Probably because it wasn't allowed in the house growing up, so I never developed a taste for it. And then I raised my three kids, also without sugary cereal. But I do like many of the non-sugary types, and eat them fairly regularly, for breakfast, lunch, dinner or snack. That's also what I take along to snack on (dry) during road trips. And sometimes, when my children were young and Dad had to work late, yep... "Oh stop complaining, kids. LOTS of people have Cheerios for dinner." ETA: This thread reminded me of a murder case a few years back. The prime suspect, the husband, had an alibi for the day of the murder - he had been at work all day. The time of death had been established partially by the contents in the victim's stomach. It was undigested cold cereal. So the coroner initially assumed that the victim had died sometime fairly soon after breakfast. But then, lo and behold, it was discovered that the victim often ate cold cereal for dinner. And the jig was up for the murderous husband.

Funny. What a shift. Now we're jumping to conclusions again. Now we're at: MIL is a controlling bitch that made a "big stink." I humbly suggest that as none of the rest of us were at the table during the social event in question, none of us really knows what happened - the mood, the tone, the actual words, the possible rolling of eyes, the history of the relationships, previous meals offered, foisted, enjoyed, refused... It would be interesting to hear both sides of the story. I wonder if somewhere, on some sort of MIL board, the MIL is busy gabbing with her girlfriends: "Wait til I tell you what my DIL did this time." I suspect that, like most things, the truth lies somewhere in between these two "MILzilla vs DILzilla" extremes. I feel sorry for the husband. This can't be a good thing. On any level.

Now, see.... THAT's where you went wrong. Just mindlessly blabber away like the rest of us.

In the defense of some of the posters, the devil was indeed in the details not provided. Given your clarification I think the situation in question was much more casual.Weighing in again... Given all of the new details (spur of the moment, you and your husband paid, etc.), it does seem like a completely different scenario - rather than having been invited for a meal, being a guest, saying that nothing on the menu suited you now that you're "into food," yada, yada, yada. In this circumstance, it does seem like you should have been able to just order a drink and say that you weren't feeling particularly hungry (assuming that you left it at that) and not have anyone at the table find it particularly unusual or, for that matter, deem it worthy of any comment whatsoever. Your original query did spark a pretty lively debate (to wallow in understatement), but that shouldn't run you off. There are literally thousands of folks here of all temperaments, and when they are asked a question, many of them (including me) have little trouble speaking their minds. The fact that you asked about whether or not a certain behavior was "right or wrong" obviously produced more passionate opinions than had you, for example, inquired as to the various ways one might hard cook an egg, so stick around a little longer. Post in the food and regional threads, and see if you can't find a crowd that's more simpatico. Give eG another chance before you decide for sure.

And I also think there's something to be said for respect for the older generation. Simply on a practical note, expecting grandfathers to be the one to make the change isn't usually going to get you anywhere.

But she WAS willing to eat "half a Cobb salad" if they had been willing to prepare one especially for her. Are you willing to drink half a glass of wine? Or eat half a rack of ribs? Or half a hot dog? I mean, if the host was willing to prepare a special one, just for you? Or do you usually just help yourself to the potato salad or cole slaw or fruit or something else they have to offer in order to be a gracious guest. I don't think it's the same thing at all. I think there's more going on here than that.

I think the only safe way out of this is to treat them at the same place to dinner. And just try to laugh it off otherwise. 'Oh gosh, I just wasn't hungry.' and/or 'Nothing looked enticing to me that day'. 'No appetite, whadayah gonna do?'. Say, 'I was having tummy trouble.' Say/do something if you ever want this to go away. Edited to say: One upping them will seal the cement your feet are setting in right now. All they need to do then is find six feet of water somewhere. Oooh...didn't mean to suggest "one-upping them." In fact, I'd apologize to them and try to make light of it, just as you suggest (a gesture which I'm sure her husband would particularly appreciate). And THEN I'd head south to Nogales. Several people have equated this one instance with dining out with friends, co-workers and peers. This one instance is, to me, completely different. Not only were these people her husband's parents, it's clear that they don't see them regularly, so it's not like this is a continuing problem. MargyB and her husband obviously were visiting from out of town (hence her misspelling of Tucson), so how hard could it have been to "make nice" on this one visit? Also, she says that they were visiting a "retirement community." Restaurants in retirement communities have to cater to an elderly clientele that often has various dietary requirements that necessitate blander menus. My own father, now 86, has probably eaten a meal in every country on the planet. He used to love "gourmet" food. Now he's reduced to a bland, low-salt, low-sugar diet. Is the Senior Citizen Early-Bird Special at Golden Corral my favorite dining experience? Uh, no. But the day my father is no longer available for me to take him there, will be a sad day for me, indeed. In fact, so sad that I can barely manage to contemplate it.

But these people were not friends, they were her husband's parents. And they don't go out to eat together all the time; she and the husband were visiting them at a retirement community south of Tucson. Next time, MargyB, head south another 45 minutes and eat at La Roca in Nogales. Get the chicken mole. Invite the 'rents to come with you, your treat.

This is sympathetic laughter, Margy. Geez, you described a situation with my in-laws, so very well. They eat at chain restaurants for lots of ridiculous reasons and no, I don't tell them they're ridiculous. They also get very offended and take it personally when I don't eat anything, even if I have a plate in front of me. The attitude is theirs, and it won't change. You can't win. To me, insisting that someone eat something they don't want to, is the same as insisting a teetotaler have a beer, or vegetarian a meatball, or a diabetic eat a cookie. Isn't being together the important part? ← See -- you're wrong. When you won't order anything, you are telling them they're ridiculous -- or stupid or garish or low-rent or whatever -- far more clearly than if you actually said something out loud. Action/words...you know. Barring a physical reason, not accepting somebody's hospitality is saying that it -- and by extension, they -- are not good enough for you. If that's not what you mean to say, choke down a few bites. ← From reading the initial post, I think it's pretty clear that in addition to not ordering anything, MargyB did say "something out loud." According to her, her mother-in-law said that there were "plenty of things" to choose from on the menu (including breakfast all day). That comment had to be in response to something like, "I can't find anything to order. Nothing looks good to me." or words to that effect. So MargyB didn't just plead off, saying that she had a snack right before she came, or wasn't hungry for some other reason, like her stomach being upset or something. She said she wasn't ordering because nothing suited her. "Oh, wait, maybe 1/2 a salad" (which as we all know, any restaurant would love to remake a Cobb salad). (Perhaps she should have said that her stomach was upset. Then everyone might have thought she was pregnant, which would have had the effect of immediately deflecting attention from her opinion of the menu.)

I always sit there with my hands folded, making no move whatsoever toward the food. Someone else at the table will invariably notice and say something like, "Go ahead, and eat while it's hot." At which point, my mannerly hestitation having been noted, and having been urged to go ahead, I do.

I like Le Skipper for an affordable and tasty lunch. If you want the bouillabaisse, you have to order it a day ahead.

That is so inexplicably peevish that I can't help but think that Friend B was in a snit about something else.

Sign me up with the (it appears thus far) nearly unanimous opinion that you were in the wrong. After all, what you were saying was pretty clearly that you think you and your taste in restaurants and food is better than theirs. And it may be (and probably is), but it is rude and unkind and insulting and unnecessarily confrontational to point it out to them. Turn it around. Say you invited them to dinner at your place, or to a restaurant that you like. And they refused to eat your cooking or, at the restaurant, said that they didn't see one single thing that they could possibly manage to choke down. How would you like that? Others have said that a business dinner is different, but I'll bet had the person treating you to dinner been your boss, you would have been much less likely to risk offending. Relationships between a daughter-in-law and mother-in-law are always tricky, and this certainly didn't help. Not to mention that you put your husband in a very awkward position, right in the middle. So here's the bottom line: you didn't force yourself to make the huge sacrifice of politely eating a few bits of Cobb salad and then unobtrusively pushing the rest of it around your plate. But you have created an "incident" with your husband's family that probably will stick in their craw a very long time. I guess you made your point, but was it worth it?

I was raised in large measure in the US southwest. Mexicans may soak the many beans they eat, but if they do, I've never seen it. I didn't even know you were supposed to soak beans until somebody told me to, about fifteen years ago I guess. But by then, I was so accustomed to not bothering that making something MORE difficult, rather than less, seemed odd. And about the salt thing.... I often cook them in chicken broth. That has, you know, salt in it. So the idea that you can't add salt during the cooking was also a late-arriving stunner in my kitchen.

If you don't like to add a lot of red food coloring, use less. My recipe only calls for 1 oz, and it's plenty red. Abra added 1 1/2 oz, and she still couldn't taste it.

Since I was one of the major proponents for side-by-sides in this thread, I do want to reiterate that if you can't, for whatever reason, get a big one, do not get one. A large one though, which easily can accommodate a half-sheet pan flat in the fridge, is still my favorite, although I must say that Kristin's looks just about as perfect as an appliance can get.

I'd also suggest you thumb through "Being Dead is No Excuse" It's supposedly a guide to throwing the perfect Southern funeral. Lots of...ahem....finger food.

I absolutely love pepper jellies, and they were the first thing I thought of, along with that old southern classic, Jezebel Sauce, also traditionalloy served over cream cheese with crackers alongside. And you're right that they're always a big hit. But not sure how 'upscale' they are. Edited to add: In an earlier post, I suggested Oysters Bienville, Rockefeller and/or Fonseca. If you're interested, not only are there many versions for all three online, you can find excellent (and authentic, of course) recipes in the Brennan's Cookbook.