Wilfrid

If the flavor of food and wine were constant, pairing the two would be a doddle. The wine would always taste the same, whether drunk with chocolate or Stilton. Now, I know nobody is claiming that, but they have to figure out what the heck they are claiming.

I have already refuted the argument that the flavor of food is constant because it is identical with the physical and chemical properties of the food. Since it's evident that the same food will taste different depending on tasting conditions, you need some sort of evidence for your assertion that the flavor of food is constant. It just isn't self-evident. I agree that to the extent tasting conditions don't vary much, the flavor won't vary much, but that supports my argument as much as yours.

All I know is I certainly don't need the Playboy channel any more.

Is the flavor of food a constant? - asks brother Macrosan. A good question. The quickest answer is no, clearly not. A longer answer would be: if one defines the tasting conditions, right down to the chemical properties of a taster's saliva, then one might anticipate relatively little variation in flavor.

As long as it was made from PVC, I didn't much care.

What the heck, indeed - I've certainly served mostarda with it myself, and it works very well. Did anyone mention cooking the lentils in the sausage's poaching liquid?

Isn't that Jack as in Jack McDavid? Sounds like a must (if only to admire his Melrose Place style looks ).

I'm having flashbacks too. I lived just off that monster roundabout for a year or two after I first left home. There was certainly a lot of junk food available. Central Line to the West End and back every night. This was my "Standing in the door of the Pink Flamingo, crying in the rain..." period.

Oh, this is long-term Food Network policy: Jack McDavid, Chen Kenichi, Sarah Moulton, Gordon Elliott, Sissy Biggers, Mario Batali, the Two Fat Ladies. These people are getting air time for their looks, not their personalities or talent. Basically, it's twenty four soft porn, with some cooking thrown in.

Gin and dry vermouth - I suspect with the latter in a larger proportion than one associates with a dry martini.

I think my US measure has the proportion three parts/one part too. This is an old reminiscence about the legendary Waldorf-Astoria cocktail bar by a guy called Crockett. I'll start the appropriate thread when I have digested (or imbibed) more. I think there's a fair chance the recipes are out of copyright too.

I am duly impressed. Have you just finished serving, then?

Basildog, this is central Manhattan, not Cornwall!

Trillium's reply has the blessed virtue of simplicity. I'll have to take another look at those recipes - it was making sense to me that the pony was bigger. I'll post more after I've tried some of them.

Thanks. I'll check back.

I am perusing a collection of recipes from the 1930s, and whilst I can deduce that a pony is larger than a jigger, I am unsure about the respective proportions. Can anyone help?

Ah, yes. There was that time I dined at Allard's in Norwich after seeing some Bacons at the University of East Anglia and missed the last train to London. Hotels just love guests who check in without even a toothbrush! You have a point.

Hmm, I wonder if she's related to the hostess who refused to fax Kim WB a wine list. The question I would have in mind would be "When I arrive at the restaurant, will I be allowed to see the menu?"

I plan to catch up with Mr Hartley in DC during the summer. I will probably follow my usual strategy - which is unresponsive to Sandy's question - of dining somewhere other than the museum.

I can find the carte on the web-site, but not the tasting menus. Am I missing something?

Heck, I think I'll roast another cauliflower tonight. Living on the edge, here.

Craig finds fine dining less interesting than home cooking. Steve finds fine dining more interesting than home cooking. A bunch of guides do too. Doesn't show that Craig is wrong. Can't we find something more, er, interesting than this?

Yes it does, but there is no inbuilt warranty of who or how many people will find something interesting. The word just doesn't work that way. Tarksi's theory of truth for formal languages is interesting to me (to the extent I understand it), but I bet not many people reading this thread are interested in it. Similarly, Craig's interested in home-style cooking, but certain restaurant guides aren't. To think there's a way to decide whether Craig or the guides are correct is to completely misunderstand the way the word is used.

Stick to wine.

Touche (with an accent over the e)!