macrosan

On who's authority have you learned this? On whose authority do you ask this ?

You will have to explain to me why a sane human being would want to be associated to religion whilst not believing in God. I'm baffled by the concept. My answer to the posit that religion is made up to control people politically is simply that it's not so. These laws were made by God. Which part of that are you finding difficult to follow ? Incidentally, that is my answer only in the case of Judaism --- I don't know enough about the others to comment.

At risk of going off-topic, Wilfrid, perhaps the alternative to war between irreconcilable faiths is war between irreconcilable secular belief systems ? I suspect that in the last hundred years, we've had more of the latter than the former.

That's the nub of it, Jaybee. If you don't believe in God, then your definition of "religion" is that it is man-made, therefore both fallible and probably sinister in purpose. But all you're offering as analternative to the "man-made" religion is a man-made belief system, which is nothing fundamentally different from the religion you disacerded except in the words it uses. Why would anyone believe that a group of guys in the 21st century will do better than a group of guys 5,000 or 2,000 or 1,200 years ago ? I accept that your new religion (whether it's called humanism or libertarianism or communism or atheism or whatever) will be written in modern language, and that would help. But where are the differences in values ? Would you include any dietary laws in your recipe for human existence ?

Briefly to clarify a misunderstanding thast might arise from one of VivreManger's posts, the Lubavichers are a tiny (although influential) sect within Judaism. Within that sect, a tiny number (literally only a few score) believe that Menachem Schneerson was/is the Messiah. The large majority of Lubavichers, and the whole of the rest of Jews worldwide, acknowledge that claim as heresy. Incidentally, it's great to see someone with VivreManger's knowledge and understanding making such eloquent and well-considered posts on such an explosive thread as this one. Which is more than can be said for some others. I'm particularly disappointed to see SteveP, the guy who criticises members here for posting about food they don't understand, or about wine on which they have insufficient knowledge, nevertheless making the most extraordinary factual errors on the subject of Judaism. Steve, your experience of the religion has obviously come from narrow and non-expert sources. I'm sad that you have thereby been brought to your present level of contempt for Judaism, and indeed for many Jews, but I can't condone your pretence to knowledge. I have just read 187 posts on this thread, and what astonishes me is that not a single person has proposed the obvious reason for dietary laws, which is quite simply that they are God's laws. Now I accept that if a person doesn't believe in God, then he/she won't accept His laws. But in that case I don't understand why they would be of any concern to that person, apart from providing a source of mild amusement. Nor do I think that gives anyone the right to doubt the sincerity or rights of those who do believe in God and who do follow His laws. Those who don't understand why God made dietary laws, or who don't believe that He could possibly have interested himself in such minor matters, simply are not accepting the foundation of their religion, if any. For myself, I acknowledge that I don't understand what lies beyond the universe, or how matter existed before the "big bang", or what came before the very first thing that ever existed, or why we live our lives. Within that framework of ignorance, I'm quite happy to accept that I don't understand why I must not eat pork. I am entirely uninterested in any explanation of why I should, or why I shouldn't. I accept it. If the most learned man the world has ever known arose and said to me "Great news, I've just reinterpreted the texts and discovered it was all a mistake -- the Jews can eat pork after all" the pronouncement would leave me entirely cold, neither thrilled nor dismayed. To ask for a "secular explanation" of kashrut is like asking for an explanation of Pythagoras' Theorem without reference to geometry. Sorry folks, it can't be done. The only complete reason for observing kashrut is that you believe it to be God's law. Now if you don't believe that, then as a Jew you can still observe kashrut (all of it or just some of it) as an act of traditional connection, or as a deliberate means of differentiating yourself from others, but then the explanation is not entirely logical, and certainly not able to stand up to hostile cross-examination. Of course, even as an otherwise observant and believing Jew, you can simply not observe it. A Jew who eats pork is not condemned to Hell, nor threatened with any punishment under the law, because it is not considered sufficiently important within Jewish law. Talk of kashrut being "segregationist" as though that were an evil is frankly nonsensical. Observant Muslims and Jews are required to say prayers 3 or more times every day. If they work, they will almost certainly have to interrupt their work to recite their prayers. Is this "segregationist" ? Well of course it is. Christians have to perform religious rituals and say prayers on several special days in the year, and in Christian countries these days are nominated as public hilidays to enable this practice. Is this "segregationist" ? Well of course it is. Spaniards who have moral objections to cruelty to animals will refuse to attend bullfights. Is this "segregationist" ? Well of course it is. In fact, any belief system is "segregationist" because people operate to many different belief systems, and many people operate to no belief system. Perhaps the most segregationist thing that could be done would be to segregate people for daring to follow their own beliefs, and thereby to think differently and to be different.

Don't do the calculation, Wilfrid. I'll meet you at Waterloo at 5pm next time you're in town

Sure, Basildog, but what are you serving in the restaurant ? HNY

You attended class ???

Wow, you have an adjustable bar in your office ? Must come and visit you sometime.

I trust you're being very careful about where you navigate to on this site

AAGilligan reviewed Sketch in yesterday's Sunday Times. It was 30% about the price, 50% about the furnishings, and 18% a simple list of the dishes his party ordered. That left 2% for a critical assessment of the food, which he rated very highly. His final line suggested that he also will be surprised if it lasts a year.

Can someone tell me where the name petcha comes from ?

I never heard this called pe'tcha, but I also know it as fis. Very prosaic, those East European Jews. They called a shovel a shovel, and they called calve's foot jelly fis which is Yiddish for "feet" My father goes crazy for this, and they used to serve it in Bloom's in Whitechapel, but I think not in Golders Green. There were sliced hard-boiled eggs embedded in the jelly. My mother used to make it every week, so I'll try to get a recipe.

I have always assumed that mustard powder is simply dried, ground mustard seed As Tony said, just mix with water and you have it, but not too much water because it should end up as a paste, not at all runny. I have seen English mustard used in cooking, but only in a dilute form. This was used to brush onto the outside of a roast brisket of beef, and it created a hard and 'hot' crust.

Thanks a lot, Heron. I'd send you a longer reply, but I have to get to the hospital quickly to have them check out some current symptoms of ..... aaaaaaaaarggggghhhhhhhhhhhh

I agree with you about fish, Vanessa. High end restaurants, unless they're fish specialists (such as Bernardin) have always disappointed me with fish. By contrast, any decent Italian restaurant in London seems to deal with it admirably. As they say in foreign lands, "go figure" I can't believe you let the cheeseboard incident go by. Why didn't you insist they replenished the board ? Why did you pay for it ? I thoroughly enjoyed my one visit to La Trompette, and I shall go again soon. But I'll avoid the fish, and maybe the cheese too

The boss of my local Italian restaurant is a golfer. Every time he plays at this time of year he picks mushrooms and serves them in his reataurant. The porcini he finds are particularly good, although they ended a couple of weeks ago On a trip to Norway some years ago, I went to the home of the guy I was meeting in a small town 30 miles outisde Oslo. His wife was the local "mushroom inspector", which is an official state-appointed but unpaid function. She told me that every town and village in Norway must have someone appointed to the job, and trained by the state. Mushroom picking in Norway is a national pastime, and it is illegal to eat fungi without first having them checked by the local inspector.

I just woke my wife up (and she's a floor above me !!!) laughing at that, G ...but it's a tempting offer, nonetheless

I think this is now officially the best subscribed non-event in eGullet's history. Oh boy, those New Yorkers sure do know how to arrange a thing

I have spent considerable time (six point five seconds in fact) considering whether I should report Professor Johnson's post to a Moderator on the basis of its clearly demonstrably heresy. In the circumstances, I have concluded that Professor Plotnicki's post is punishment enough.

That game platter has done it for me --- I have to go. I too have never been there, although it was always the place I kept meaning to go to (a bit like RHR now) but never got round to. Then when Dad left, I thought maybe I'd left it too late, since when it has disappeared from my short-term memory bank (not a lot of room left in there any more). Thanks for the pointer, Wilfrid.

Amuses bouches have become de rigeur in most high end restaurants. Where they once were novel and interesting, I find they are often now jaded and irritating. Do chefs really enjoy preparing these items, and do you think they continue to serve an important part of the overall dining experience? Or, do you think the time has come for someone to "break ranks" and offer something different (perhaps a wine or aperitif or digestif) or just to stop offering such extras altogether?

Oh no, not tabasco !!!!!!!!!! Kiku, I prefer the pan and water option. Once melted down, put the pan in the fridge. The fat collects in a layer on the surface of the water. Then mix a small amount of that cold schmaltz into the chopped liver, don't reheat the schmaltz to melt it. If you just find the result too fatty, then don't add any extra schmaltz (I personally prefer it without the extra). The onions are already fried in a mixture of vegetable oil and schmaltz !!!!! You know, you can experiment with all this in any combination you want. That's half the fun .

Stick with me, Steve, and I'll teach you a thing or two New green is a sour pickle, very light. The pickled cucumber looks pretty much like a raw cucumber. Is it a British-Jewish thing ? I never thought so, but you'll never get chopped liver in a Jewish restaurant here without being offered pickled cucumbers. I thought you'd been to Bloom's