Steve Plotnicki

I heard you were coming to lunch next week. Is it a different Tommy?

Creativity is how one applies technique to a set of variables. Soul is the expression of personal feelings while applying that technique. All you have said is that not every set of variables calls for the application of complex technique. No disagreement from me there. But when assessing a restaurant, those that apply the most complex technique to the most challanging set of variables, and execute the technique perfectly are most likely to be considered the better restaurants. Go through a list of NYC restaurants and you will see what I mean. Look at the list of NY Times 4 star restaurants and you tell me what restaurants who didn't get 4 stars apply the same level of technique as the ones who did. As for soulful, no it has nothing to do with what I like. It has to do with something being soulful. Michel Troisgros cooks in a soulful way. Alain Passard does not. He cooks in a cerebral way. Just like Otis Redding sang Try a Little Tenderness more soulfully than the guy from Three Dog Night sang it. Daniel cooks soulfully when he is on as does David Bouley. Jean-Georges less so even though he often makes a better meal than the other two. And ADNY is devoid of soul nor does it really stretch the limit of one's imagination so that's why there is no buzz about it in this town. Nobody is arguing that complicated technique is the end all and be all. Clearly the most valued asset a chef can have is a sense of balance and proportion. Yet like a concerto where we are wowed by the difficult passages, restaurants who conquer their own version of difficult passages are what we value the most. In fact I find that your position on this thread to be in conflict with your position on the Zagat thread. The single most obvious thing wrong with the Zagat Guide is that people overrate restaurants that apply the simplest of techniques. Union Square Cafe is the perfect example. The cooking isn't interesting (because it isn't demanding) yet it gets a zillion points.

Tommy - I thought I acknowledged you all of the time. It's bad enough I hurt the feelings of Spice Girl and Sweatpea but you too? You are right regarding your point about the "turn of events." As is Cabrales with her questions. But think how lucky you are. You have been witness to the Stalinization of eGullet's history. Anyone who questions it will be killed off or smeared in the press. So it's best off forgetting it. We'll just have to talk about it amongst ourselves at lunch next week.

Bux - Sorry Bux. Appearing simultaneously seems like a good enough cause and effect for me. Either the writer who the troll is trying to pile on with separates himself from the troll or they don't. In fact here is the text of a PM sent to me today. Name of the author withheld as I haven't gotten their permission to use it and I hope they aren't angry with me for posting even this much of the message. "I had a lot more trouble with the content of his article than you did. I take objection to his assertions which he states as fact, when what he writes are his opinions, completely unsubtantiated by the facts. What is worse is that everytime he starts this out come the "trolls" with their rants and raves." It must be that you are not in touch with the tenor of the board because this is exactly how a bunch of people on the board feel about it. As for me, I am the troll magnet because I really don't want to stand for this bullshit so I speak my mind about it. Most of the other people are afraid to say anything about it so the rath of the trolls is usually directed at those who are brave enough. That is usually me and Nina and a few other posters. Face it Bux, the trolls are here because management allows them to stay here via their "ignore the troll policy." It has nothing to do with me. I'm just the vehicle they want to use to screw up your board. If you were willing to enact a no-troll policy they would be gone in a heartbeat. And part of that is facing up to who the trolls always side with and why. Of course that doesn't mean you might not have prior experience with good trolls. But then you wouldn't be calling them trolls would you?

Steve Klc - What do I know. They just happened to have the "Best of Boston" article in some magazine when I was up there and they listed Christina's as the best. The story they told in the article is how the owner made a special order of avocado ice cream for someone's birthday and how delicious it came out. With just a hint of avocado flavor. But next time I go I will try Toscannini's. Actually the Saint Ambrose gelatos used to be very good, especially their passion fruit. But they are no longer on Madison Avenue and I'm not sure the Fauchon that replaced it is of the same quality. But they have a Saint Ambrose in Southampton but I don't get there that often. But as long as we're talking ice cream, I had loads of it during my 4 day swing through New England. Other ice cream highlights were Four Seas in Centerville on the Cape. That was a great old school place. And the scoop of "The Full Vermonty" I had at the Ben & Jerrry's in Pittsfield was really good.

JD - Sorry to bring this past point up, but I didn't really have time to sink my teeth into it in my last post which was hastily written from the business center of a hotel in Boston. But as I left the hotel, the following dawned on me about your statements regarding the objective/subjective nature of things. The fact of the matter is that unless we are describing things that are objectively measured by scientific means, like the speed of sound or the temperature water boils at, all things are subjective. But even though things like how wide and high a football goal is, or where they put the fence in baseball were all decided subjectively, we use that agreed upon criteria as an objective standard. I hope I explained this correctly because it wasn't easy . I often wonder how we would discuss food if it was a game like baseball or football. Not that I am suggesting it, but we are so quick to accept the rules of sport yet we aren't willing to accept the rules of how to eat well. Your story about the leg of lamb and the mint jelly is spot on this point. If the person who asked about the mint jelly asked you why a ball that clears the endline outside of the goalposts isn't considered a score, they would readily accept your answer that the objective standard is that it must cross within the posts, not outside. But they would never accept your answer about the mint jelly the same way. Personally I think this is what is wrong with food. A women wouldn't be caught dead wearing shoes and a pocketbag that didn't match, yet she has no problem slathering mint jelly on her Gigot a Sept Heures. Now getting back to where the conversation is right now, to me the primary issue in assessing a restaurant is what level of technique they apply to the ingredients. In fact I think all the other variables are pretty much the same because they can be bought for money. You can buy the best grade tuna and you can buy the best decor. But what you can't buy is that perfect turn of the wrist a chef applies to those ingredients. I think this is the same in every art or craft. What an artist brings to the mix is his individual take on the technique of his craft. I think it's the same for musicians, painters, sculptures, writers etc. I think the second most important thing is execution. Perfect execustion of simple concepts can be more rewarding than more complex technique that isn't as well executed. The restaurant Arpege is always a good example to point to as they can execute a single scallop and a few slices of carrots so well that it can be more profound than a more complex dish somewhere else. I think all other things like quality of ingredients and service flow from the first two points. Obviously restaurants who fit this profile desperately need the top quality ingredients or they can't pull it off. And having perfect food with less than perfect service doesn't do you much good either. Same with decor. So to me, the great restaurants are those who perfectly execute the most demanding technique in the most soulful way. Just like a saxophone player or a violinist. I think the most important thing a restaurant reviewer can do is to find the soul of a restaurant. What makes it tick. What motivates the chefs to do what they do. To ferret out exactly why it is that the fish soup at Loulou is so damn good. And I know that if we interogated Eric Campo the answer we would find is as follows. He is picky about what fish he puts into the soup, he has some unusual technique he uses to get the soup to come out that way, and his execution is always perfect. And I bet if we went down the road to Bacon, they would be even pickier and the technique would be even more delicate. Rocket science this ain't.

Jordyn - But John's article, and his general commentary on who posts here including his derogatory comments about what people can afford are exactly the contentious topics that trolls look for. That is exactly my point. Whether you want to see it or not, John's behavior encourages trolls. In fact he seems to have a number of troll pals. I don't know if you were a member at the time of the infamous blowup with Suvir. The trolls appeared simultaneously with Suvir making personal statements about certain members on the board. Up until that day, I can't think of a single troll on the board. But since that day the board has been infected with them. And while many people have commented about the trolls on the board, I have yet to see John, or Suvir for that matter ever ask the trolls to stop. Is that an accident? I don't know about you but, you and I could have the biggest disagreement in the world but I would come to your defense if someone was trolling you.

"an "unusual" troll-affected period was focused on as though it foretold the decline of the board." Cabby - I love ya but sometimes you have to put two and two together. Don't you see that John was at the center of the troll-affected period? Just look at this thread. Criticism of John's post brought the trolls out. And then instead of being critical of said troll about their use of certain language and general personal invective, he congratulated the troll on their presence. It's like he and Suvir created the trolls and then he went out and wrote about the downfall of the board. What's the name of that syndrome when the mother gets her kids sick on purpose to draw attention to herself?

Fat Guy you screwed it up because Glace (I can't make the accent) is better than both of them. But among the two you listed, gelato is better. And this is even after having ice cream at what is considered the best ice cream joint in the Boston area on Thursday night, Christina's in Cambridge, Mass. I had a scoop of Banana and a scoop of Izuki bean. Pretty good but it didn't kill me. But the all time best sorbet used to be (and maybe still is) Fruit de Passion from Berthillion on the Ile St. Louis. The stuff rocks.

Haggis - Welcome aboard and don't take it personally. My apologies if you were offended. And by the way, I am the wheat intolerant person Liza was referring to. And next time, leave more than a buck and a half. They do a good job there.

Bux - Well just so the record can be straight here, and I will do it in reverse this time. I would never do what John did without full disclosure. And I think the same is true for every other long term poster on the board including the moderators. Secondly, I think that almost any journalist who participated wearing both hats would would make full disclosure even if they didn't have to. And I also think that many publications would ensure that disclosure was made before going to print on an article like that. You can say I'm wrong about that, but like I've said, I've never seen it happen any other way. Except I guess if it is intended to be adversarial. As to the contents of the article, what's different about it? It's just the usual class warfare stuff that John trots out in every post. Read his writing on the French/Chinese thread or the Best Food Writers thread and it's the same politicizing only from a different soapbox. He's just unhappy the world is ordered according to how much money people have and he is going to make sure that he points that out as often as possible. But that's why the article is so laughable. Here is a guy who cloaks himself in the writing of trolls when it suits him. But the purpose of the trolls is to limit free speech. And then, he writes an article saying "Big Brother" has set in on eGullet. Hellooooooo. I am with Cabrales on this one. I have refrained from making comments about what I've been told by various people here because I have been asked to. But then someone like John comes along and uses his "connections" to eGullet to draw conclusions that might not be true, and to denigrate other members in the process. If you ask me that does get to be a bit much. So I hope you reconsider how you feel about my point. Because in the end, I am really on your side here and would like to see the site do well. But I can't say the same for some other people whose participation seems to be motivated by some other agenda. Jaymes - I haven't complained that I have been misquoted. I have complained that the non-disclosure didn't let the other side get its story out. That's two different things. Had John disclosed his story then I am sure he would have gotten a flood of PM's about it and then he probably wouldn't have been able to reach various conclusions he arrived at. And to gather information as a member for the purpose of writing about the other members, while not giving the members a chance to get their side of the story out (because of non-disclosure) strikes me as odd at best, and unethical at worst.

Wilfrd - Not funny ha-ha. The other funny .

Bux - I think if you read back about my position on this it's been pretty consistant. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure what the professional standard is but *my gut* tells me that full disclosure is usually what happens. As I have stated, I have yet to be involved in a situation where it wasn't disclosed. Plus I also think it is the standard that other journalists on the site would adhere to even if there was no set professional standard. I can't imagine that you or FG or Steve Klc would write an article about the cite that was critical of the posters without announcing it in advance. I don't think that would happen in a million years. But putting all journalistic considerations aside, I would never write from my vantage point as a member without full disclosure. To me that's a matter of courtesy to the other members. But you haven't addressed my points about the tone of the board and how the incident unleashed a torrent of invective that infests the board to this day. And it hasn't gone unnoticed by certain members that John cloaks himself in the invective of the trolls, which I must add is something Suvir did as well. It was true on the day of the incident and it's still true today. In fact he seems to be a troll magnet. Wilfrid - Of course I know that. But for example, if you turned out to be a journalist and used the conversations you had with people here for an article without their knowledge, while that might be legal, that wouldn't mean they wouldn't feel betrayed by you. Not that I'm saying I feel betrayed by anything John did. I just find it odd that he feels it's okay to participate here and then write about it like he hasn't been part of the conversation. It's not only his lack of disclosure that I've been pointing to, it's the lack of disclosure in light of the way his article is written. Something about the tandem strike me as odd.

"John used his membership here to ask questions just as any other member has. That he used the public answers to his questions as well as what appears in other posts should not cause anyone any concern. Any lurker could gather the same information. " Bux - That isn't true. Anyone else would make full disclosure when asking their question. And if they didn't, the next time they might be treated differently. And while a lurker could gather the same information, a lurker would have no idea that Suvir is coming back. So I don't really know what you are talking about because while it might very well happen the way you describe, the fact of the matter is that it doesn't ever happen that way at all. I just can't imagine that if Steve Klc or someone else on this board was writing an article on the goings on around here that they wouldn't disclose it in full detail to the other members. But I guess we could live by the Truman Capote standard if that's what you want. "Why you come here for that sort of pleasure is beyond me" Well excuse me for saying this but if you haven't noticed it, since the whole "incident" there has been a serious diminution of good food writing on the board. Ad hominem attacks are almost de rigeur around here. And articles like John's, along with his continuing attitude towards members who contribute at the high end level, including how he describes those people on a personal level after they contribute to the board in earnest has acted as a huge deterrent. I've said it before and I will say it again. People are happy to have their opinion criticized, but people aren't happy being criticized for having an opinion. And if the latter is tolerated it just consumes the former. What I find amusing is that here in this thread that management wanted to die a quick death, you have perpetuated the thread based on what I said was just my gut feeling about it. I could have spoken my two cents and then it would have died. I should also add that I composed this response before reading your last reponse to me and I noticed it on the preview. But it seems that this response was sufficient to respond to the material points you made.

"That's because you are trusting, considerate, and open-minded." Fat Guy - It's about time you figured that out . Actually I don't see Zagat being *so wrong* compared to other reviewers. I think William Grimes is off more than Zagat is. And I don't think Zagat holds itself out to be anything more than a popularity contest among a better educated reviewer. If you happen to be the gastronomic equivelent of their mean (or is it median) reviewer, good for you. If you are worse, than the guide is a big help. And if you are better, so what. You have to adjust it for being too mass-market. What's so terrible about that?

Rich - If we followed your logic, there wouldn't be experts at any discipline. It's simply not true. People who have eaten meals at the all of the worlds great restaurants have a greater breadth of experience then those people who have never stepped out of Manhattan. They use a different standard. Movies and music are pretty much the same. How many people agree that the top ten box office hits are the best movies or the top selling album is the best one? Fat Guy - I don't think you have to sort them out. Most people here are experienced beyond those 20,000 people so their collective judgement doesn't apply to us. But, those 20,000 people also aren't stupid and while they might not have eaten as many plates of foie gras or knishes as you and I, I am willing to credit anyone who is willing to take the time and effort to respond to Zagat as someone who warrants a say in the matter. It just means the results have a margin of error that I feel I can cope with when reading the guides.

Wilfrd - Well this aspect of it hadn't occurred to me at the time so you have my apologies. Even in this instance, I couldn't care less what he wrote about. But what does bother me is how he used his membership on the board to his advantage in the article. I don't think it's in the article but it is in a post in response to certain questions that he raised the "waiting for Suvir to return issue." Well that is inside info based on his membership. Not info that he accumulated from being a reporter. The end result is that the article has a bias on that issue and like someone mentioned, it isn't fairly reported on. That's my only real complaint and I think it's a result of less than full disclosure. But again, you have my apologies and you can go at him all you want. It will be my pleasure to watch. And maybe even participate.

Bux I'm sorry I have to disagree with you. Over the 20+ years I have been in business I have been interviewed countless times and have particpated in events that have been turned into articles even more times, never once have I been in a situation where I haven't been told by the writer what he or she is intending to do. And there's a good reason for that. People are entitled to know who they are speaking to. And while I know your response to that is that this is a public forum and anyone can read it, that has nothing to do with the way you interact with your fellow members. If they come to the board in earnest, i.e. as a participant, that is one thing. And if they are coming for another purpose they should disclose that. It's not a very strenuous standard that I have laid out. If it was me, I would have disclosed it. Not based on any journalistic standard (even though I think one exists,) but one of respect to the other posters. Even the many people here that I do not hold in high regard are entitled to that level of disclosure. As I said earlier, I have no problems with the article and its slant. I would have had no desire to read it in advance and would not have asked for any changes if I had gotten the chance to read it. However, the article is unfair in that John didn't point out that he was in a position to contribute to some of the issues he was writing about. Fat Guy mentioned that in his first post that John failed to disclose that he was poster number 17. Rail Paul mentioned other "flaws" in the article and others did as well. My comments are just expansions of those issues. Do Fat Guy and the others have a vendetta against John as well? Of course not and neither do I. I made a point on the merits that I think is right. And in the future John can act differently or not, and if he doesn't, we can choose to interact with him or not. Now that sounds like a fair arrangement to me.

Jordyn - Well I have been away for 5 days so to me it's all new fodder. Gavin - Thanks for nominating me but I didn't bring it up so I could get a sopabox. My pet peeve on this one is full disclosure. I don't need to be published by the FWG. Maybe someone else wants to volunteer. Jin - I'm not aware of any disclosure though there might be. But I am describing full disclosure which is what I think any jounalist would do. I mean hasn't it happened before that a journalist has come onto the site and disclosed that the questions they were asking are for the purpose of an article? I don't think that is too much to ask of John or anyone else here that is intending to do the same. Full and clear disclosure isn't a bad standard for people to live by. And not doing it (intentionally) should allow me or anyone else to draw an inference about the writer and the publication.

Well I had wanted to start a new topic about journalists who are members disclosing their intentions about writing articles but thought that would bring even more attention to John's article. And I knew that you wanted the thread to die so I stated it here. But I was surprised when you responded to me at all because you were the one who perpetuated the thread. But now I'm getting blamed for it. Sheesh. You guys should make up your mind about this free speech thing or not. Forced behavior to ensure a thread falls out of the active posts screen is just a mild version of it. A coherent response to the allegations would probably make the members here feel better. Although I'm not included in that bunch because I don't have a problem with the article. But I do have a problem with how the information was amassed which clearly shows bias. Maybe the Guild of Food Writers would allow one of us to write an Op-Ed piece about John's article?

Well I'm not accusing Haggis of being a troll, but I do believe I pointed out a flaw in the story. It's the same type of flaw that "Hector's" stories on Chowhound had. But I must add that if Haggis is a troll, Cabrales has done exactly what Haggis wanted which is to start an unresolvable argument amongst the members of the board. That's what trolls do. I trust that Haggis will reappear on the board and defend the position he/she took. But there is no need for me to have an argument with Cabrales about whether Hagiis is legit or not. Right now there is a question out there about what Haggis did about tipping at Dimple on a "monthly or better" basis? There will either be a good answer and Haggis will be welcomed, or there wil be a bad answer (or none at all) and another troll will bite the dust. But clearly Cabrales nor anyone else here can respond to that question so lets' save ourselves the arguing okay.

Fat Guy - You and I are speaking about two different things. What might be *legal* isn't the standard I'm using. Of course he doesn't have to do anything. But what I'm objecting to is his coming onto the site and acting like he is just a member when he is wearing the hat of a writer. If he is going to be wearing two hats, which you point out that he is entitled to and to which you will get no disagreement from me, it behooves him on an ethical level to disclose which particluar hat he might be wearing during a discussion. As I said earlier, I do not know a single journalist who wouldn't make that disclosure. The issue here isn't how John acts, it's our entitlement to know what he is doing. Like I said, maybe people will not want to interact with him as a result. Or maybe people will not want to post to the site anymore. In fact I recieved a PM from someone who said they are considering a hiatus because of John's article. I'm certain this person wouldn't feel that way about it if John had disclosed his intention and then this person would have had a chance to make an argument to defend their position in advance of thr article. In the end of the day, this issue always comes back to the same thing. If eGullet continues to allow a policy where the members are allowed to write about each other on a personal level, the board will come apart at the seams. John's article actually raises the issue of it coming apart for that reason, but it does a shitty job of reporting the truth about it. Because Suvir is the one who crossed the threashold and personalized the conversation. The resulting trolls, which were egged on by John's writing on the board, and which he eggs on to this day by publicly lauding himself in the prose of the trolls, culiminated in an article written by a member about other members. It shouldn't have been allowed the first time it happened, and it shouldn't be allowed now. And if it is going to happen at an external source because a member wants to take advantage of his status here, it shouldn't be allowed to happen without full and clear disclosure. That's what any reporter who has come onto the site has done. I don't see why John shouldn't be bound by the same code of ethics.

You mean you joined eGullet to ask a question about the morality of leaving a tip at a buffet? Since you claim to eat there once a month, what have you done when you have eaten there in the past? It seems odd that you have eaten there so often and then you describe the goings on as if it's the first time you have encountered them. Tell me, do you usually eat lunch with Hector?

Kunin makes a nice bottle of wine. I've spoken to Seth Kunin on the phone and he seemed like a nice guy. I got turned onto their wines at a Skurnik tasting (local distributor) when Ned Benedict the wine director at Aureole turned me onto it. But in general, I don't see how anyone prefers new world wines vs old world wines. Where's the complexity?

To add to Ron's very good list, Alsatian wines consistantly stand up to the toughest pairing. What could have more acid than choucroute? It has saurkraut AND mustard? I also find that the white wines from Friuli work well with light tomato sauces that are used in seafood. Pinot Bianco and good Pinot Grigios are great paired with seafood risotto, and have enough acid in them to counterbalance the acidity from the tomato in the risotto. But when talking straight tomatoes, the classic pairing is Hungarian Tokaii.