rich

Nathan as I recall that was a very controversial review based on his first paragraph, where he came as close as possible to saying he didn't award Babbo four stars because he didn't enjoy the music. I don't think euphoria existed at all. In fact, it was in that review he set the tone for his other problematic proclamations.

Rich, do you categorically object anytime a critic makes an off-hand reference — for purposes of comparison — to something he's not fully reviewing? It happens all the time, e.g.:John Doe gave a thrilling performance, overcoming the intonation problems that have plagued him in the past. John Smith has written a compelling legal thriller, which is much improved over his earlier novel, "The Broken Cherry Tree." In this film, Spielberg focuses on the characters, unlike his earlier films that are flawed by mind-numbing special effects. And so forth. ← But there you're comparing the same author's work. In these restaurants, you have completely different staffs, chefs and philosophies. The only common denominator is the owner (of a certain percentage). I don't see the comparison of these restaurants in that light. Why not compare his burger shack as well? Meyer's places are stand alone restaurants, not chains. Each has its own personality. I see no validity in the pot shots he took. The only possible exception would be service - since that's a DM trademark.

Not arguing his right to do it Marc, I'm saying it's petty. Those four restaurants are very different and have different concepts with the common denominator being DM. There's no comparison worth mentioning aside from that (except service). What was he saying - "Well Danny, I'm going to give two of your places great reviews, but within those reviews I'm going to smack down two others with off the cuff comments." In my mind that's how it read, and that's petty.

Yes, that's my point Nathan. If he wants to put down those places, it's certainly his right. But do it in their own review where an explanation is necessary (at least for most critics). Don't throw out of couple of negative lines and end two very positive reviews with negative comments about other places. That's pettiness. Why didn't he do a four-split review? The he could have have two three stars and two one stars, averaged them to two and call it a day.

I think this is a serious sign that they're trying to improve the place. ← Well they need to generate some revenue to pay the monthly marble tile bill.

I don't understand the necessity of the criticism of USC and Gramercy within the review. It doesn't make sense, was totally uncalled for and displayed a pettiness that has become one of the author's unfortunate trademarks - starting with his Bouley review at the beginning of his meaningless tenure. As far as giving the Bar Room three - it's just another example of "not getting it." It's about as simple as that.

About an hour before you use them, marinate in a pinch of Kosher salt, pepper, a crushed clove of garlic, two teaspoons of lemon juice and two tablespoons of EVOO - they will never taste better.

I wish these people would get it right. It now appears confirmed - The Modern and EMP. More than likely it will be neither the way things are going.

Here's a suggestion for entertainment - run the Superman episode: "Superman's Best Friend," on the TV. It contains one of the great food-fight scenes of 50's television.

Other people are now reporting it will be EMP and USC - that makes a little more sense. USC has probably gone a long time without a review. My guess is 3-1, very outside shot at 3-2 if things went perfect at USC.

Yes, but after 4am, they re-broadcast something quite original from their road series - "Debbie Does Dallas."

There is talk on two other boards that the NY Times will do a split review of The Modern and EMP this week. The majority of people think EMP will get four. I think that highly unlikely. It's doubtful EMP would get four since the Times chief restaurant critic wouldn't do a "split" review for a four-star restaurant. My guess is both get three, which is an upgrade for both (I think) since their last review. There would be no point in re-reviewing The Modern and keep it at two stars.

Seriously, are any of those places on the food list? I thought they were supposed to be for viewers.

As Yogi Berra said - no one goes there anymore, it's too crowded.

So if I'm reading the graphic correctly, New York has no law prohibiting minors from consuming alcohol - just purchasing it. Therefore, if Bryan wasn't buying the wine, but his mother was, then it was legal for him to drink. Is that correct?

The thing that surprises me most is the number of lawyers who are criticizing a restaurant for adhering to the law. I think the consesus is this is a bad, archaic law, but it is still the law. And as court officers, I thought lawyers were bound to uphold the law. Would any of the lawyers advise their restaurant-owner clients to adopt to a "don't ask, don't tell" policy with regard to serving alcohol to underage patrons? I don't think said lawyer would be in business for long and may not have her/his license for long. I understand the concept of "not enforced in high-end restaurants," but no one knows what the situation was at EMP that night or nights previous. It's possible some elected official or high ranking law enforcement official was there. It's possible they heard some city inspectors were making the rounds during the holiday season. It's even possible they were given a warning by someone. But whatever the case, to criticize any establishment for deciding the uphold the law (thereby protecting themselves for fine/punishment etc.), even if it's for one night or one holiday season, is absurd.

I went the second night it was open (2/17/94) and I had a half bottle of champagne and full bottle of red with dinner, had the nine-course menu with supplements, left a 25% tip and the bill was about $650. I got away cheap and that was before I signed my multi-year contract to play for the Yankees.

H. - are you saying the customer who knows they are under age, shouldn't ask for a drink? Or are you saying the under age customer should ask and accept the restaurant's decision?

Well, as a lawyer for the restaurant you could argue that the customer broke the law as well by ordering a drink, knowing she/he was under age. It makes a difference because the customer is inviting an "innocent" party to break the law, yet the customer walks away and the establishment receives the penalty. I guess a good lawyer might even argue entrapment, but I don't think it would fly.

The problem with your examples SE are who receives the penalty. In both cases (sodomy and traffic lights) if you break the law, you receive the penalty. You take the chance and don't argue if you get caught. In this situation, the person getting the drink won't be in trouble, but a second party (the restaurant) pays for the crime. That's why I did it in Virginia, the responsibility was mine. The restuarant provided nothing - I did it myself and took the risk. And that's why Ohio's law, which I cited earlier, makes the most sense.

I was in my mid-twenties in the mid-twenties. Where does that leave me? ← -Seeking a club where you can do the Charleston? ← I don't even have knees anymore, let alone hands to put on them.

I was in my mid-twenties in the mid-twenties. Where does that leave me?

Of course Sam if you went to the extreme, the restaurant would be liable. But if you got the glass, poured the wine yourself the restuarant wouldn't be liable. It was a case in Ohio (I think) and the restaurant was found not responsible. It also helped the person who poured the wine testified on the restaurant's behalf. It's really not much different than the don't ask, don't tell philosophy that several have ordained. Restaurants need to be very careful these days - a lost liquor license is disasterous.

I faced the same problem with my niece in Arlington, VA two years back. She was 19 and wanted a glass of wine with dinner. I ordered a bottle and the waiter didn't put a glass in fron of her. When I aksed he said he couldn't serve her. I agreed. I got up from the table, picked up a wine glass from a cabinet and poured her the wine myself. The restuarant didn't serve her the wine, didn't bring her a glass - it was all on me. Legally the restaurant was not liable. They can't prevent an adult from giving wine to any other person at a table if the person ordering the wine is legal. The problem is the glass. If a restaurant serves a glass of wine, then they are pouring and serving. The solution is order the bottle and have the adult get the glass and pour the wine. The restaurant is clear, but they do have the right to refuse service if they feel it necessary. With all the "inspectors" walking around NYC businesses thses days. I think the waiter and/or management was correct in not serving a glass of wine to an under age client.

That's right: Rich will be Bruni's successor, and the topic next year will be "Schulhoff and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2008)." ← Don't wish that on me. I wouldn't wish that I my worst enemy. On the other hand, the next reviewer will have an easy act to follow.