macrosan

I think my browser has an error, because I can't see a single smiley in mogsob's post. Clearly, given that the whole post is intended to be ironic, it must have been written with at least 20 or so smilies. Unless, of course, mogsob meant all that nonsense, which surely can't be so

Ron, please remember to prefix that with "Methinks" .... it reads so much better that way Brad may not have eaten at ADNY, but we, the membership of eGullet, will defend to the death his right to comment on the comments of those who have. Well, OK, not quite to the death, but pretty damn close On the subject of reverse snobbery, I think it's reasonable that restaurants who have pretensions to be the best should expect a higher standard of judgement to be exercized. So a slight imperfection at (say) Babbo may go unnoticed, but exactly the same imperfection at ADNY will get slated. That's not reverse snobbery, it's not even something you might describe as "unavoidable", it's a perfectly proper and erasonable response. ...oh yes, and I'd better plead the Trent Amendment and state that I've never been to ADNY, but I am determined to go next time in NYC. At least, it will either be ADNY or Otto, I haven't quite made up my mind yet

I'll repeat what I said before. It's not a question of responsibility, or duty, or "must", or "has to". It's not an issue of A or B. It's just to do with a commercial relationship, and I don't see where some people have a problem with this. It's in the restaurant's own commercial interests to tell consumers as much as they reasonably can, whilst not accepting a duty or responsibility or need to do so. It's in the customer's interests to tell a server as much as is important, and to ask as many questions as seems reasonable. That isn't a perfect system, but it works fine most of the time. But there are some clear and predictable situations where problems for a customer might arise. For example, if I order a dish of artichoke hearts, I would not expect to find meat in it, unless the menu suggested otherwise. An example of this might be Artichokes a la Grecque. Now I have no idea what "a la Grecque" might mean in this context, but it's a signal of a special preparation so I would ask. Absolutely no problem for anyone, provided that the server, when I ask him if it contains meat, gives an accurate answer. To return to the original example given by Kate, if the fish dish she referred to was called Salmon a la Grecque, then again I believe there is no problem. I would ask. But if it was called poached salmon, I suspect that very few people would expect the dish to contain anything other than salmon. If in fact the salmon is cooked with prawns, or bacon, or meat stock, or wrapped in caul fat, then I would suggest only that it would be wise and customer-friendly for the restaurant to state this on the menu, or to signal it in the way I suggest. Salmon a la Grecque ??? Whaasup widdat ?

In judging an "offense" I think it matters not whether someone else committed the same offense before, and got away with it Maybe Ducasse, as the allegedly highest price meal-ticket in town, will come in for criticism where others escape, but if the criticism is valid then it needs to be voiced. If that in turn passes that criticism on those who escaped before, then so much more value to the criticism of Ducasse.

I agree with this, provided we are using a very narrow and pedantic definition of the word duty Again, I agree in the narrowest sense. However, what is the quasi-legal position if the consumer asks, and the server gives an incorrect answer ? For example, if a Jewish person asks "Does this fish contain only fish?" and the server says yes, yet the dish contains lobster (which is not a fish but a crustacean) then where is the legal responsibility ? What if the server does not even know what "caul fat" is ? And so on. My point here is that the issue is not yet one of legal duty and responsibility. It is to do with a proactive commercial relationship between restaurant and diner, a relationship which should be one of mutual respct, where the restaurant should be trying to do its best to help the diner to get the best possible experience. I don't see why a restaurant would want to avoid giving the diner the maximumum possible information, which surely includes details of ingredients of a meal. Many people are interested in categories of ingredient, for a wide range of reasons, and restauranats do know this. So why would they need to wait to be asked specific questions, couched in appropriately careful terminology ?

It's an interesting question. In the UK, we have intense food labelling regulations for all packaged food. Yet we have no similar regulations for restaurants ... yet. Of course, these are coming very soon under new EU regulations. Many restaurants have got used to the idea of liosting the main ingredients of a dish under its name on the menu. I guess they do that firstly to avoid the endlessly repetitive questions they would otherwise get from diners, and to avoid invalid expectations on the part of the diner. Maybe they are also concerned about allergies. Similarly, very many restaurants are now putting a "V" symbol beside dishes that contain no meat. All of this is a natural response to the reasonable demands of consumers. The problem Macdonalds had was not just that they fried their fries in meat-based oil, it was that they advertised their fries as "vegetarian". Overall, I believe the onus is shared. A restaurant should explain on the menu that they are using caul-fat in their cooking of fish, just because a majority of diners will not expect that to be so. But equally, it is for the diner to check whether any dish on the menu contains something he or she would specifically not want to eat. Incidentally, the reason I think restaurants should be proactive in this is that very often the server will answer such an enquiry from a diner incorrectly. Many servers have little idea of how a dish is prepared and cooked, and they will often quite innocently giver wrong information.

We're all victims of our own prejudices and I understand I may be missing something, but I have a hard time understanding why anyone, parents with small kids included, would want to see Sleeping Beauty's Castle when Chenonceau is not far away. I suppose it's a cultural thing I don't get, but I march a step out of line with both the French and my fellow Americans. In Japan the Disney theme park near Tokyo is a favorite place for honeymooners--so what do I know? Bux, he did say tour-de-France, not tour-de-force What you don't realise is that it's not the parents with small kids who prefer Disneyland, it's the kids with big parents. I haven't been to Chenonceau, but from what I understand it to be, they just don't have Mickey Mouse greeting you at the entrance, and stuff. It may well be what every parent wishes his small kid would like, but then small kids also need a childhood One of the enjoyable and rewarding experiences in my life was watching my own kids' faces when we took them to Disneyland Anaheim. It's a memory I shall always treasure, far more than any of the wonders of the world I have visited in my life. By the way, what's the food like at Chenonceau ?

We asked a couple of time at Rain Forest and were told no both times. But I did observe a couple of groups who entered and were seated in a way that suggested they did have reservations. Maybe a quiet word earlier in the day ? Maybe regulars ? Maybe folding money ? I don't know, but I would suggest you try when you get there.

Oh dear, that's generated a coloured marker on my "Places I want to go to" List You're my hero, Matthew. I have only ever once really intended not to leave a tip, but I was pre-empted by the waiter bringing the bill and saying "We haven't charged you for one meal, and we of course don't expect you to leave a tip" But on other occasions when I shouldn't have left a tip, or at least should have left less than 15%, I've always chickened out.

Oh-toe -- "Most difficult to pronounce" Cow and Corn -- "Worst!" But it was a superb Italian restaurant, and I finally persuaded the owner to change it to Mucca e Grano" which still sounded bloody awful, but at least it sounded Italian Hook Line and Sinker --- "Naff but neat". This was a fish restaurant mini-chain of the 1970s. Usually pretty good food, and the name matched the style somehow. Gramercy Tavern --- "Best". It just somehow seems so appropriate for what it is, and it rolls beautifully off the tongue. It also sounds good as "GT" or "The Tavern" or even just "Gramercy". That's what you call euphonic flexibility.

I have been twice to this culinary hell-hole in the last two years, and only very insistent and wonderfully engaging grandchildren would ever drag me there again You have basically three choices. First, the fast-food places in the park --- burgers, hot dogs, pizzas sandwiches and so on. American style, and the most uniformly appalling fast food I have ever found anywhere in the world. The variety is abysmal, the ingredient quality poor, preparation quality very bad and variety almost non-existent. As an example, they have sandwich bard that only sell baguettes, they have just three varieties, and they all contain ham !!!! Do you guess that I didn't like it ? Second choice are the places just outside the main entrance to the park. Better than inside, more variety. There is a 1930s style burger place (poor) and Italian resto (didn't try this) a Southern BBQ house (not bad), a steak house (average) and The Rain Forest (excellent). There may be a couple of others I didn't try. Most of these places are packed, specially from 6pm when people come out of the park, starving because they can't eat the food inside the park. The Rain Forest is always the busiest, there is sometimes a one hour wait, and that's because it's a great setting for kids, they have a fantastic variety on the menu (exotic and plain food of all kinds) and the food is excellent, except if you're a big party some food may not be hot when it arrives. Last choice is the hotel restos. I have stayed in two of the hotels, and they seem to be in a mold. They have a cheaper restaurant where the food is just about adequate but fairly expensive (about 40 euros for 2 courses without wine). They serve kids' specials (burgers, chicken fingers, etc) and a very limited choice of adults' dishes. Service is good, but queues are long. They also have a high-end restaurant. Again, surprizingly limited choice, food is OK but definitely not what you would call high-end anywhere else, and very expensive for what it is (about 60 euros for 2 courses without wine). I would go for the Rain Forest every time, and maybe the steak house (can't remember the name). Try to go at off-peak times. Do enjoy your visit. The Disney bit itself is great.

That 's it. I went there for coffee a few times (it was one of the first "Espresso Bars" in London) but for some reason they didn't discover me. Tommy Steele was better looking, maybe ? Wilfrid, it's on the south side of the street about four shops up from Wardour Street. I don't know what's there now.

Now I remember the 2 I's in Old Compton Street. That's a collector's special for you. Anyone else ?

1995 at Gleneagles. Prebooked tee-time on the Kings Course, absolutely pissing down with rain, would have cancelled but we were only there for three days and I'd never played Kings before. Played four holes of total misery. Couldn't hit the ball out of my own shadow (oh if only there had been a shadow), soaked to the skin, cold, not happy. On to the tee at the fifth, a straightforward 160 yard par 3, and I say to my typically gnarled Scottish caddie "What club should I take ?". He replied in his rich, rolling Scottish accent "The way you're playing, sir, it disnae much matter"

Oh no, don't tell me that closed down El Vino in Fleet Street has a 1970s claim to fame, they tell me. Probably more grubby press money changed hands there than even Jeffrey Archer handled in his life. What about Rawalpindi in Wimbledon Village ? Famous early Indian resto - is it still there ? Bombay Brasserie too. Schmidt's in Charlotte Street was a huge German restaurant much frequented by students and university staff. Now long gone, it used to serve what I believe they called "wholesome food" in vast quantities. Ahhh, so much nostalgia, so little time ....

And I agree with you, my son

It's OK, jfp, it's not a drinking competition

Yep, it's true. Alcohol raise the acidity level of your blood, which causes nicotine to be excreted at a much faster rate than normal, in fact about double. Incidentally, that's exactly the same biological reaction caused by stress). This in turn makes a smoker smoke more than usual in order to maintain the nicotine level in her bloodstream. What that does is to build a strong causal relationship between smoking and drinking. As a nicotine addict, you get used to the idea that when you drink you smoke more, which gives you a more frequent nicotine "high", which you enjoy, which makes you want to drink more so you have to smoke more. Further, there's a strong experiential relationship between the two. It becomes a habit to smoke when you drink, and to drink (where you can) when you smoke. I think I'm right in saying that virtually all alcoholics are smokers or users of other drugs.

Auchterarder House (near Gleneagles Hotel) in Perthshire. One of the most elegant and extraordinary dining experiences I ever had.

Oh Lordy, NC is where the money from the class action lawsuits against the tobacco companies, designed in principle to enable the states to invest in health care needed by the victims of smoking, was almost all ploughed into subsidies for failing tobacco farmers But to return to the subject of smoking in restaurants in NYC, I still don't accept the need for enforcement of no-smoking restaurants. 75% of people do not smoke, and I believe it's over 80% when you get to the over-30s (the largest smoking group worldwide is teenage girls !!!). I simply cannot believe Mogsob's contention earlier that 99% of restaurants would cater for 20% of its market constituency I'm certain that if restaurants were allowed to choose, within ten years the proportion of no-smoking restaurants would be the same as the proportion of non-smokers. The market simply wouldn't permit otherwise.

Presumably that was after his mate the raincoat maker fell out of favour After the B&T I graduated to Nikita's in Ifield Road. Very good restaurant downstairs, where they served carafes of vodka encased in ice. Wonderful bar upstairs where they served in excess of 100 varieties of vodka. Not far from La Croisette, a superb French fish restaurant. I haven't been to either for years, but if they're still there then I should go again --- though not to both on the same evening

Now that is something I'd like to see you produce some evidence for.

Wilfrid, Are you of the opinion that "second hand smoke" is not really causally related to non-smokers developing pulmonary disease? I am asking in all seriousness, no sarcasm intended. If your answer is in the affirmative, I would appreciate whatever details you can provide. I can't give you refernces, Ron, but there has indeed been research into this. Trouble is that most of the research has been disseminated by the anti-smoking lobby, so it's not always reliable (the interpretation, that is, not the factual research). From memory, the general consensus is that you would need to spend something like 2 hours locked in an unventilated room filled with cigarette smoke to get the same detrimental effect through toxic materials that a smoker gets from smoking one cigarette. Of course breathing in air at all which contains the toxic materials in cigarette smoke is harmful; but no more or less harmful than walking in a New York street and inhaling the toxic exhaust fumes. The dnagers from second-hand smoke are real, but I believe very much exaggerated by non-smokers and by lawyers representing clients who work in bars

I'll bet you Heston Blumenthal knows the answers

Nick, best thing is just take down the mirrors