Sneakeater

I totally agree with this.

But I get treated fine at Daniel, and I'm far from a regular and very far from a UESer. Also, in terms of age, what shocked me the last time I was there (in September or so, after a hiatus of several years) was how young the crowd was -- on the average, it seemed much younger than me. The kind of people I hate, to be honest -- but while that can be a criterion for whether you'd enjoy going to a particular restaurant, it can't be a criterion for objectively judging it.

See, I don't see Daniel as a "meal of a lifetime" kind of place. I see it more as "comfort food goes to heaven." I would bet that Daniel has more regulars who eat there weekly or more than any of the other four stars. And among the many reasons is that this is the kind of food you can eat that often.

Oh, I don't want anyone to think I believe this Daniel review reconcilable with Bruni's existing ouvre. I don't (and it isn't). I thought Bruni was just beyond justifying at this point. The only question is whether you agree or disagree with him, in a random sort of way.

I think EMP serves food that I could credibly consider four-star (although their ingredients are not as luxe as Daniel's, IMO). But the room and the style of the service let it down.

I both read her and respect her (a lot).

Where you and I differ is that I can't think that Gramercy Tavern is in the same league as Daniel. That's my point (which I understand you disagree with). To me, Daniel is closer in quality to Le Bernardin than to GT. If nothing else, the extremely luxe ingredients at Daniel push it over that line for me.

I think sickchangeup has it right: the food at Daniel isn't as consistently good as the food at the other four-stars, but it's better than everything below it. The fact that Daniel does more covers than any four-star should creates the problems with consistency. So there is a tough problem with how to rate it. I have a strong feeling that what swayed Bruni is the same thing that sways me, ultimately, in Daniel's favor: I (and I suspect Bruni) simply like the style of cooking at Daniel -- more haute rustic and less progressive -- better, on the most fundamental level of personal preference, than at the four-star competition. You might argue that this means that I (and presumably Bruni) don't appreciate true "four-star" cooking. But I'd argue that when this more traditional style of cooking is done at the level Daniel often (but not absolutely consistently) reaches, it's not self-evidently wrong to recognize it. PS -- Middle-aged people dining alone get a fine welcome there.

It's idiotic. The two-star list would be beyond idiotic, to the point almost of being surreal.

Devi is more like innovating from within the Indian tradition, rather than sort of sticking Indian accents on what is essentially American Restaurant Food. I like Devi a lot.

The one at Resto was plainer: the pork fat in the Irving Mill burger really tells. To tell you the truth, I think I liked the Resto burger a bit better.

Since I've only been there by car and always assumed it wasn't accessible by subway, I was surprised to figure out yesterday (slow work day) that World Tong is all of two blocks from the nearest subway stop (N line). So the commute there might cost time -- but it needn't cost much money. And I doubt it's any farther from most parts of Manhattan, by subway, than Flushing.

Was the decision to eat "family style" yours or the restaurant's?

Didn't Vikings eat Spam?

I -- and I think most NYC professionals share this -- can only dream of the day I can leave work as early as 6 p.m. (or, even more unbelievable, 5:30 p.m. so as to get somewhere by 6). (Although these days one must be careful about dreaming of things like that -- it's all too likely to come true.)

In other words, you can only go when you don't want to.

And to be fair to Ms. Strong, since she reached goal, it's hard to call her dating life "mostly unsuccessful".

I'll repeat: Johnny is Johnny Iuzzini, the most famous pastry chef in New York. One of the most famous in the world. He moonlights at PDT on Sundays, to learn bartending. His attitude, as reported, is inexcusable. But it's not like he's some random barguy they picked up somewhere.

I would get the idea they're a "cocktail bar" from the fact that they have a cocktail list that they evidently take some pride in (and that it contains that famous "cocktail bar" signifier, the Aviation). I wish they would work on the cocktails so they were up to the quality of the food.

Honestly, have you heard of Parisians proceeding on that assumption and feeling one way or another?

Key word: "supposed". Anyone who goes to a NYC three-star thinking it's going to resemble a Paris three-star is going to be very disappointed.

I've had it there. (It = tong po pork (There = Shanghai Cafe) It may not have been called it that on the menu. (They didn't call it that on the menu at Joe's Shanghai back in the day, either.)

See, Emma, you're just slipping into being old. That's how I feel about, like, everything.

Bouley

Well, that's not exactly "out in the rain". I think Johnny's conduct was inexcusable. (And I think you're right about BOH types perhaps not having people skills.) But I also think things are going kind of far when people walk into bars where they're not known -- bars, not even restaurants -- and start taking pictures of the cocktails and stuff. Try that at Farrell's in Brooklyn (not that you'd ever order a cocktail there) and see what happens. I know that Serious Cocktail Bars are different from regular bars, but let's not get out of hand.