rich

Funny, I feel the same way about 92-year-olds. OIBLTIBS - There's great word using those letters!!!

That type of system is infinitely better.

Steve just gave his opinion on the MSB thread that it's serving the best food in NYC at present. He also believes that under the current star system it should get "0." If this is the case, what does that say about the current star system? How can a restaurant with the best food be given two stars by the Times and "0" by Steve based the the current criteria? Is MSB the best case yet for the elimination of the star system. Is this a shot across the bow to other restaurants holding many stars to "wake up" (paraphrasing Steve here)? Is MSB the restaurant that will finally (and happily for me) put the star system out to pasture? Can anyone play taps?

Four-star food in less than stellar surroundings - hmm... I started a thread on that once and the responses were quite revealing. So saying this about MSB, isn't it also saying there's a flaw in the current way restaurants are "starred?" If MSB is serving 4-star food and yet gets two stars from the Times, how will the average diner ever come to that conclusion? Isn't MSB the poster child for the split rating or no star rating (just copy and a recommendation)?

Were they kissing each other or guests? Wow, I've been there twice now and have not been kissed by a waiter, waitress bartender, beerkeeper, wine steward or the hostesses or owner - or even my dinner companions (I probably need to work for the Times and dine at Robert's). In fact the last time I was kissed by any restaurant staff person was in 1927 at Luchow's. But I was 18 then and very cute. I don't think that would happen now under any circumstances - unfortunately my best days have passed.

I really want to like The Modern - I really do. I've been there twice now and while there's nothing really wrong with it, there's nothing overwhelming about it except the room itself - but not being a big ambience guy, that doesn't count that much for me. The food is good, the service is better than good, but both times I've left saying (with apologies to Peggy Lee) is that all there is? I haven't tried the Bar Room yet and by all accounts that's better. I'll probably try it when I get the chance.

But with modern transportation, the large majority of produce is always in season somewhere and therefore readily available. I purchased some corn Friday in Brooklyn - I was told it was from South America. It looked and tasted great - thought it was the middle of summer, early fall.

Steve, I think the entirety of your post was true, but the above paragraph troubles me the most. As you know I've been around this board for some five years and have seen many people come and go. I have seen many "lukers" (and still do) who are reading and never post and this causes concern. I'm sure you recall Steve, that about 18 months ago I started a thread titled the "Death of the New York Board." I received e-mails from you and several moderators asking what I meant - and I explained the board was dying because the only posts we were getting at the time were by members asking where to eat when they came to town. By the end of the day, the moderators agreed with me and the boards improved for a while, but eventually slipped back to that same pattern. Today the NY Board is kept alive by three people for the most part (SE, Marc & Nathan). I would venture to guess they post more than half of the board's posts on any given day - I'm sure Mr. Kim will correct that number if I'm far off. Yet, at the same time, I notice many, many more people reading the posts and never posting. Why they don't? Well, a couple a factors come into play - fear of sounding foolish and getting bashed; not wanting to stick their heads out with an opinion; feeling not part of the club. Now I've tried to get people involved in my own way. As you, and probably any other person on eG realizes, I play the devil's advocate at times trying to draw people into a conversation. Sometimes, I espouse a postion I don't believe to keep a conversation going and get reactions. And sometimes I'll write a fictional account of something attempting to get the attention of others. Last Saturday, I wrote a fictional piece about Luger's reaction to the Times handling of the Robert's review. I received many pm's saying how funny it was and getting the idea it was a joke because I used April 1st as the starting date. Yet not one person responded to it on the board. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know it's disconcerting that such a small number of people post on the NY Board. So I agree, Steve we need a wider base of real posters in NY - maybe a Spring Sale where we promise that the NY Board is a no bashing zone. Saying all that, I don't understand why the Mesa Grill doesn't get more play here.

I think they tried that, but the ceiling was too low and the floor too high.

maybe, just dont tell rich. Now you really owe me a cocktail. ← Hey wait a minute Daisy, if your that guy's secret identity, may I see the out-takes from the photos you published?

See Nathan, I have a sense of humor...

There's no slideshow this time. He doesn't do one every week. ← What? No Slideshow? For a two star diamond on the UES? What? No half-naked women? No shots of the locker room of the 92nd St. Y? I feel empty and abused and robbed and frustrated. What? No Slideshow?

The number could even be higher than that.

Actually it is a good review. Does anyone have the link to the slideshow? I can't find it anywhere on-line.

I'll take it a step further - nothing he writes is a crisis of ethics in journalism or a harbinger of the death of print. No journalist has that power - that power resides with newspaper publishers and editors (the decision makers). ie - Woodward and Bernstein didn't have that power, but Bradley did.

It's a wonderful thing when parents are so loyal to a son.

Actually, it's three and the third was my issue - the type and extent of coverge given by the Times, which as nothing to do with their reviewer. But it's over now - we have all agreed to disagree and learn how to love each other again.

Steve, no one is changing anyone's mind. My issue is the type and content of coverage, which has little to do with the reviewer. But everything seems to go back to him (for whatever the reason). As with Nathan, let's just agree to disagree on this matter.

Nathan, how about we just agree to disagree?

You're asking me that question? :shock: I have probably posted more off-beat, humorous (attempted) comments on eGullet than anyone. Somehow I don't think the Times was attempting to be funny with that ad - I think they were trying to portray an individual as something he's not. That's not funny, humorous, it's (quoting SE here) just bullshit.

You're being kind. Other papers have moved into the 21st Century quite comfortably by using the internet to its advantage.

It was the Times who printed that he is a investigative restaurant reporter - no one put those words in their mouth. That sounds like he and the Times take the position quite seriously. If they didn't, why use that terminology? Since they're in the "business," I would think they undertstand the use of the term "Investigative Reporter." If they don't, they ignore all my criticism, they're not a paper in critical condition - they're already flatlined. ← dude, that wasn't literal! seriously, how can you read it that way? edit: it was an ad for goodness sakes...I am more certain of this than anything that I have ever posted on egullet....that this was not intended to be literal...and you guys are the only ones taking it that way (I think oakapple gets it). ← So now we're saying the ads the Times prints about itself aren't true or are not to be taken literal? The paper that claims everyday "All the News That's FIT to Print," is in the business of misleading the public? I always thought the Times believed in the term "truth in advertising?" At least their many editorials on that subject indicated such. Okay - so I believe what the Times prints when? Self promotion ads - no; restaurant reviews - no; sports - sometimes (at least when Dave Anderson is writing); arts and entertainment - ???; hard news - yes, unless the reporter(s) is just writing his/her version of the events. Hmmmm - seems all clear to me now.

Agreed SE - so why did the Times print it?

It was the Times who printed that he is a investigative restaurant reporter - no one put those words in their mouth. That sounds like he and the Times take the position quite seriously. If they didn't, why use that terminology? Since they're in the "business," I would think they undertstand the use of the term "Investigative Reporter." If they don't, they ignore all my criticism, they're not a paper in critical condition - they're already flatlined.

Now that comment is, at best, "out of touch." Steve, your're taking things out of context. Your examples about news stories about sex scandals are just that - news stories. I'm sure we can find some of the same type of reporting about the Clinton/Lewinski matter. What we're talking about here is the type/hype of coverage these stories get - the double-meaning headlines, the photos, the slideshows (the latter obviously didn't exist in the 50's or 70's). Would the Times of 1997-8 have printed photos (if they existed) of Clinton/Lewinski having sex in the Oval Office? Would the NY Post? I think the answer is no and yes. Today I think the answer would be yes and yes. If you don't believe this is a crisis period for the Times with respect to ethics, or the death throws of a newspaper in critical condition, there's no more I can say. You continue to read the paper through rose-colored glasses, I will read it for what it's worth - and you already know my view on that.