Alcibiades

I guess it's not inedible, then. Just unheard of in Buffalo. If it tastes good, eat it up.

Moriarty's tastes ok but they don't cut the inedible handle off the wing (unless they've started doing so since I've been). I grew up in Buffalo and I'd never seen that before. Locust Rendezvous is not bad. Try Anchor Bar at Main and North Sts. in Buffalo. They're the best.

Good luck to the staff. I hope you all land gigs quickly.

I'm with Holly on this one, Philadelphians did blow it. Diners need to understand that quality restaurants are not publicly-funded museums or that chefs' labor is not something that exists in an artistic vacuum--restaurants need to be supported and patronized and if this doesn't happen, poof. If we want a better dining scene, we need to support the small businesses that are pouring out their visions. One, this keeps these spots in existence and two, it encourages energetic and creative people to take the plunge thus leading to more innovation.

As I say, one the three occasions I've had the pleasure of hosting him (at 2 different restaurants) he has not been in disguise. I know this because he lives around the corner from me and I see him frequently. Guess he always felt comfortable.

While he may wear disguises while reviewing, on the three occasions I've seen him in restaurants doing reviews he was not in disguise. I believe the disguises are worn when he's making public appearances. Think about it: if he believes himself to be anonymous while dining then there's no need for a disguise, only when he's drawing attention to himself by attending an event with his name on the program would he need to be under cover.

Terry, I'm glad to hear that you've stuck to your guns. These guys spend huge amounts of energy on the "little guys" because they perceive us to be more easily swayed on account of the fact we're small businesses. I think I'll pop into your place for a drink. I've never been before but I'll gladly pay double just out of appreciation for your integrity!

The hope is that in its proper manifestation government responds to the will of its constituency and sound science with an eye towards sensible public policy. As the facts stand now banning foie gras would be a move in the opposite direction, especially if the impetus for such a ban would come from a group of fanatics who are mobilized because they lack proper socialization.

If Hugs for Puppies is the institutional force behind the enactment of a foie gras ban then we have a serious problem in this City's government. As I mentioned on another thread (and as Linda Terry mentions here) the tactics and informational substance employed by this group are harrassing and misleading, respectively, and amount to substanceless rubbish. The issue of legislating against foie gras sale doesn't seem to pass legal or sensical muster at this point. As far as I know, the prevailing opinion of the American Veterinary Medical Association does not come down on the side of foie-gras-as-torture. Furthermore, the Department of Agriculture doesn't deem foie gras to be a menace to public health (thereby voiding the argument that "diseased" livers--whether that's true--pose a threat to humans who ingest them). Save for the FDA (possibly) I cannot think of another agency whose statutory disapproval of a food item would cause its sale and distribution to be banned. Therefore, what business do the elected respresentatives of the people of Philadelphia have in banning foie gras? Is there a City agency that exists that has scientific priority over the appropriate regulatory agencies of the federal government? Why the City Council would take this issue up in legislative matters is beyond me. The accepted science and corresponding laws of the appropriate regulatory agencies side with the continued production, sale, distribution and consumption of foie gras. Until this changes, banning foie gras does seem to be a violation of consumers' rights. Edit: I don't mean to imply that the AVMA is a Federal agency, merely that it would be the leading authority on the biological aspects of animal cultivation.

Went to the Cantina on Monday afternoon after the Phillies game. $10 margarita pitchers and some food deal were in effect (the specifics were almost as forgettable as the food). I think we set a North American land record for chips consumed as they were pretty tasty. I like getting tanked on a Monday at 4pm for cheap. Not such a bad thing.

I just finished listening to the program and I have to say that Rick Nichols did an excellent job in pointing out that the Nick Cooney's demeanor on the program gives a very different impression from the one his group gives when conducting a protest. I've had several dealings with Hugs for Puppies and been on the receiving end of their protests 4 times. They have, on more than one occasion, engaged in abusive language and violated the specific physical and time constraints under which their permitted protest was allowed to take place. The foie gras thread is closed down because the topic is inherently political. Frankly, there's very little to discuss about this topic that has to do with gastronomy (at least in the context of the protesting). With that said, it's worth noting (in my experience) that the Hugs for Puppies group is engaging in intimidating, verbally-abusive and often times misleading behavior in order to get their point across and I'm glad Rick Nichols stressed that in his appearance on Radio Times.

S, It was never implied by me that the argument is whether Laban should be permitted to have an opinon. Of course he should--he's a human being and he's also a professional opinion expresser (whether one thinks his is good I'll leave up to each reader of his articles). My reaction was to what I felt was Matt's dismissal of his opinion. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that the phrases "he's a horrible writer" and "he's lost all respectability in my book" are dismissive.

V, My opinion about the food at James (as per the quote you cited 2nd) is exactly that just as Matt's is his. My point (as per the quote you cited 1st) is that the opinion of a particular diner doesn't invalidate that of another when those opinions differ. To make an imperative out of one's experience at the disqualification of another's is, in my opinon, not the right way to proceed. And so regarless of what one thinks, unless one is a strict Kantian one should not dismiss another's opinion just because the opinions are not consistent. There is no logical disconnect between either of the sentiments of mine that you've parenthetically plucked. Matt, Fair enough.

Matt, Maybe you just had a bad experience and Laban had a few good ones. I've eaten there and it wasn't nearly as bad as you've described nor was it as good as Laban thought, in my opinion. Would that indicate that you're both wrong? The problem seems to be one of consistency which is a huge sin for a restaurant but one visit by one diner is exactly that. You're free to not return but to suggest that your experience invalidates those of other visitors (namely Laban) is a bit logically inconsistent.

Steak tartare is best enjoyed in Paris, not because it's necessarily better there (though it may well be) but because it embodies the pleasures of casual bistro dining in the Parisienne tradition. As noted on this thread the dish is not seen around here as much as we'd like it to be. To boot, it seems impossible to imagine a traditional horse meat tartare State-side. In my opinon, steak tartare is food with an interesting history and fabulous gastronomical reward. It's decline in popularity in the US may have something to do with our penchant for uninformed hysteria, though it may be that people just don't like it much. Don't know, but I do know that I love it.

One thing that I find a bit disappointing about all the press Osteria's getting is that very little is mentioned of Jeff Michaud. While Marc is terrific and certianly is the front-man of the Vetri empire (for good and obvious reasons), Jeff is the chef at Osteria and deserves to be credited for his immense contributions to the restaurant's success. Not one mention of him from Bruni and only in passing by Laban.

I was managing a New Year's Day brunch at a fairly small dining room and the toilet exploded covering the entire restaurant's floor in odious water. That was a failure. Another time I was serving lunch and the ceiling collapsed on a three-top, completely covering the guests in wet plaster. That, too, was a failure.

"Yeah, but you're begging the question here. No one is going to disagree with you that a *screaming* 9 month old child is a disruption that should not be visited on other diners. But not all babies are the same. And not all parents are the same either. Letting the kid sit and cry his/her heart out is obviously wrong, but that's not what most people do." HD, I'm not begging the question. Klein's initial scenario was a 9 month-old "shrieking baby." To extend that scenario by discussing well-behaved babies is to extrapolate outside the bounds of the original poster's conditions.

Why is this even a discussion? Of course not. Should you park your car in the middle of the street? Should you smoke cigarettes in the dining room? Should you get drunk and bark at the moon? The standard of respect for others in our society has eroded/was never there to the point where we have to have conversations about whether it's ok to disrupt others. As a simple matter of respect a parent should not bring a screaming child into a nice restaurant, much less scream and yell him/herself in that restaurant. A 9 month-old screaming child is, by its nature, audibly disturbing to those within earshot. The question for a parent is whether he/she is willing to risk detracting from the experiences of his/her fellow diners. Inevitably this will happen. In my opinion it is selfish and disrespectful to others to knowingly engage in disruptive behavior while in the company of others. There are basic social agreements we make in fine restaurants that include not intentionally disrupting others' enjoyment. A screaming child will invariably violate this standard much like a cigarette smoker would at the adjacent table. The babysitter was designed for exactly this purpose; getting one isn't always easy but such is parenting. Others should not be made to suffer for one's inconveniences, which is one of the basic agreements we should all make about living civilly.

Then again, I hear he was waited-on by the management staff.

I've been three times and the service has been a problem on each visit. Rudeness was never an issue as they've always been very nice but the service ranged from inattentive and misdirected to sloppily cloying and misdirected. With respect to the Laban thing, this may cost them a bell, assuming he had similar experiences.

I agree with V that the use of language on the menu at Gayle is a little weird, though a diner wouldn't necessarily have a chance to notice if he/she never walks in the door. I think a bigger problem Gayle (and to a lesser extent, Ansill, though their crowd is a little more local) has is its location. The Lexus and BMW crowd doesn't want to drive down to South St. on a Saturday night and drive around for 2 hours looking for parking. It's a shame because I think their food is terrfic.

Well said, P.

Thanks for the update on Hendrick's. It's a fabulous gin. Unfortunately, I feel like gin has taken a dip in popularity over the years in deference to vodka. The vodka companies have done an incredible job marketing a spirit that, in its best incarnation, approximates the taste of water and therefore is more broadly-appealing to American consumers. Fortunately that means there's more of the good juniper stuff behind the bar and we can leave the Goose and tonics to the Tag Body Shot crowd in Olde City.

The article is cursory and uninformative to anyone living and dining in Philadelphia. It's been my experience that just about all food/wine publications are little more than PR-driven plugs for whichever market/restaurant/individual the editors choose to hone-in on. On the other hand, an encyclopedic overview of an entire city's dining scene is a bit unrealistic for a periodical. Hopefully the article is useful to those living elsewhere.