Steve Plotnicki

Nina - Well if you could show that cholent started out as just grains, and that meats and vegetables were added slowly as people became a little more prosperous, than you would have something. But my gut tells me that cholent had more flavoring to start with than porridge or congee had.

Porridge is very good. Is there a French equivelent of Porridge, risotto, mamaliga etc.? In the Savoie, you get dishes that are very much the same as dishes in the Northern Piedmont. Taillerin, polenta etc. And in Basque France, you get paella. But elsewhere in France, is there a staple dish that is merely just a grain with a little flavoring?

Nina - Actually not kasha varnishkes but kasha. Poor Eastern Europeans ate a big plate of kasha maybe with some butter and salt. And maybe the kasha had a little tsibele (onion) in there to give it some tam (flavor.) It's actually a good thread for someone to start on staple foods that ere merely grains with a little flavoring. Congee is like that. What else would be like that? Pozole, hominy corn with a little pork flavor and cilantro?

Robert S. - Well one can start chasing their tail in these arguments. There is a market predisposition to them because it is the "winning" culture. If most people didn't percieve French culture the way they do, there wouldn't be a market for it. It's really a very simple profer. Cassoulet is considered a "better" or more "complex" dish than Tuscan beans because more people who are qualified to make an assertion about bean dishes say its so. Does that mean it's absolutely true? Of course not. But is it reasonable to accept the position based on their sayso? Absolutely. The thing about markets is that they are self adjusting. A market such as what is interesting to cooks is much too large a market for anyone to try and control. That the consensus among home cooks who are interested in cooking at the level we are discussing trends towards cassoulet is a pretty big statement in and of itself. But if we laid out the ingredients of cassoulet and Tuscan beans next to each other, it wouldn't be hard to see why that is the case. It stands to reason that a harmonius blend of beans AND meats has the potential to captures people's imagination in a way that beans that are flavored with a bit of pancetta doesn't have. Not that it has to be true and not that there aren't arguments against that but, it certainly is obvious as to why people feel that way. "Maybe the best conversation, or the best article, would be a comparative one, taking into account historical, social, economic, political factors" Well I kind of opened that door when I asked why the Tuscans stopped with just beans. How come they didn't produce an elaborate dish that incoporated the beans? Can you imagine if the Spaniards served rice but no paella? They have that in Spain. You can just get a plate of rice cooked in squid ink or fish broth. Maybe they will throw a pea or two in there. But they went the extra ten yards and made a paella with all sorts of goodies in it like rabbit, chicken and sea food. How come Italian food stopped short? And the same phenomenon happened all over Italy. Look at a Risotto Milanese. It's just a plate of rice that the Italians are willing to eat as an entire course. Not that it's bad, it can be quite good. Especially when fried in butter the next day. But, I can't think of many other cultures who have a grain as their staple who have fashioned an important course around the grain and don't serve anything with it. Mamaliga?

John W. - Your response raises a number of issues. First, the point about opera isn't to say it was accessable or inaccessable to the masses. It was to say that the technique needed to both compose it and perform it was/is demanding. And that one needs to be highly proficient to do it correctly and it takes years and years of practice. Chamber music, while arguably more simple than opera, is still techniquely demanding and isn't really a corrolary to the hamburger involved in this discussion. Second which is a question, how did something so involved as opera become so popular with the masses in Italy? Third, which goes to your point about chamber music vs symphonies/opera, my original point doesn't say that the most technique is necessarily the most profound. As I said to Robert S., the argument in favor of Italian cuisine is one based on terroir where a less interventionist approach to cooking is preferrable. If I could flip this question around on all the doubters, and I started down this road with Robert S., maybe someone has a good answer as to why other countries in Europe besides the French didn't go that extra yard in refining their cuisine. As I asked Robert S., why did the Tuscans stop with beans? How come no cassoulet like dish? Let's take the potato gratin. It is such a sophisticated potato dish. How come they don't make it in the alpine regions of Italy, Switzerland(non-French) and Austria? They serve potato dishes in those places, they have cheese and garlic. Nu? John's point about Auberges and Bistros, and their ongoing popularity to this day makes the point that bourgeois cuisine is the ultimate expression of how the middle class likes to cook and to eat. It has just the right level of complexity to make it a trick to master, yet doable. And if you think about it, other than the chefs of todays "bistro modernes", the chefs were most often untrained and self taught. All those old fashined "mamas de cuisine" in Lyon weren't graduates of the Cordon Bleu. Robert S. asked me earlier about my "aptitude of sensing the marketplcae" and in that context I will say that the desire to make a gratin is similar to why Eric Clapton is the most popular guitar player. It's easy to buy a guitar and to try and play like him. In fact, many people can learn how to play that style of guitar at an acceptable level. But it's significantly harder to learn how to play like Segovia, not to mention that the music in itself is less accessable to most people than what Clapton plays. So less people are trying to do it. That's why French "wins" in all of the conversations around here, and everywhere else for that matter. Making Tuscan beans seems simple, and gets you a simple result, so it's a less rewarding experience than making a cassoulet. And making Roast Potatoes is less rewarding than making a good gratin. And making a hamburger is too easy. We like to eat them but what's to talk about?

"Why, in the context you have stipulated, namely the sort of discussion we have here (am I stating the context accurately?), French over Mexican? French over Chinese? French over Italian? High over low? Complex over simple? Expensive over cheap? Why is that? Is the other way around: Mexican over French; perfecting mole over perfecting gratins, etc., the dominant interest elsewhere? Where?" Finally a tough question that gets to the heart of things. And here's the answer. I don't know. But I will try to answer. I just think it's a matter of numbers. How many restaurants in the U.S. that aren't run by Mexicans are there where the chef/owner is obsessing over how to make mole? Fontera Grill? Three or four others worth talking about? Now how many do you think are trying to make one of those seven hour slow cooked legs of lamb? Probably a lot more. I also think that we want to perpetuate our own culture in a way where we do not want to perpetuate a foreign culture. Take cassoulet. Tremendous connection to both Jewish and Christian tradition in a way that curry powder will never have. As for simple vs complex, I think things define themselves. One can find the perfect peach. But I'm not sure one can find the perfect hamburger, or perfect hot dog. A hot dog or hamburger can never have the nuance a perfect peach can. Now some people want to say that's subjective, but I don't think so. French cuisine seems to have pushed the envelope in a way other cuisines haven't. A plate of Tuscan beans is delicious (especially in Tuscany) but maybe you can tell me why the French went the extra yard and made cassoulet, and the Italians stuck to beans as a side dish? That's a simplistic example but I'm going to stick with it. I think that the Italian economy had a lot to do with how Italian cuisine developed. In France, despite it being a poor country, they had good meat and poultry available to them. But the Italians couldn't afford meat so they created dishes that were flavored by small amounts of meat or by meat juices. Hence the proliferation of things like ragus etc. The flip side of a lack of meat is how the cuisine developed around pasta, about as simple a food product ever created. As we've discussed in other threads, the argument in favor of Italian cuisine is one that is based on their unique terroir. But I don't find the argument that Italian cooking technique is as complex as French technique to be very credible. When I retire to France and I write my famous book on how French cuisine came to be dominant, I am certain I will find that during the era it came to dominance, information traveled by foot. And west of Germany, to get from anywhere in Northern Europe to Southern Europe one needed to travel though France so they were exposed to more different cultures than any other country. It sounds simplistic but there has to be something to it. "how to find the best hamburger" Jon - I don't think anyone is interested in learning how to find the best hamburger. What people are interested in is learning WHERE TO FIND IT. That's the difference between cassoulet and a hambuger. People are interested in discussing how to make a good cassoulet and where to find one. But when it comes to hamburgers, the possibilities of an interesting discussion about making them usually has its limitations. But I don't know what this has to do with actually having a conversation about hamburgers, or boiling water for that matter. Just because I point out that when discussing simple things, there is usually less to talk about isn't intended to say that simple things aren't worthy of discussion. Bux - If you don't stop it you are going to make me talk about opera I'm having the same difficulty you are having in understanding why people are having so much trouble with this concept. Except for Robert S, who keeps asking existential questions, to me it's very simple. It's harder to bake a cake then to boil a pot of water. I promise you that every person, even one who never did it can boil a perfect pot of water the first time they try. But to bake a perfect cake, or even a close to perfect cake, It could take someone months of practice. To me, making a hamburger or a hot dog isn't much harder than boiling water. And that doesn't discount Jon's point that there are people who might not know how to do it, and they come to eGullet to learn. But it ain't the same as making a cassoulet that tastes mijote. Now that takes miles of practice. I think in general the people who put up simple but perfect things as examples of how less can be more are not hearing my point. But since Jon brought up opera, let me try and refine his thought. I think to get caught up in whether one likes opera or not, or whether one has the cultural background to appreciate it is a detour in the road. The fact of the matter is that whether you can appreciate opera or not, opera is the highest expression of musical composition for theater. Now whether you agree with that or not is not really the issue, although that's the most typical argument that arises in relation to that type of statement. But what I've done by making that statement is to try and seperate the technique of composing an opera from its appreciation. And I'm certain that even though Jon doesn't appreciate it, someone might be able to pique his interest if they describe why the technique is so unique and difficult. In fact, that might be his way into learning how to appreciate it. "I'm curious why complex French cuisine is more popular than complex Mexican cuisine" Robert S. again - Because Mexican culture peaked with the Aztecs. It's for the same reason that museums all over the world are filled with Italian paintings and not Greek paintings. They had a Renaissance and the Greeks didn't. That's like a 1800 year advantage . Or maybe you can tell me why the great painters and authors all went to France between 1890 and 1950? Or you can explain to me why all those photographers are Jewish? I knew that mind you but I didn't want to bring it up for obvious reasons.

The best meal I can remember, although I can hardly recall what we ate was my second meal at Robuchon. I can't tell you the year but it was probably two years before he retired. The intermezzo of jellied chicken soup they served, which we all thought was foie gras, was the single greatest thing ever served to me in a restaurant. But among my more memorable meals are two diferent meals I ate at Chantecler in the 80's. One an all lobster menu and one an entire duck menu. And the most fun meal we ever had was at Taillevent. It must have been 1984. My wife and I went for lunch and they treated us like royalty. They gave us something like four desserts. Ah those were the days.

"Trying to mould a child's eating habits is unlikely in itself to lead to food disorders" Tony - I'm trying to understand how people do that without raising the issues of, "self image, control, power, family dynamics etc" That's why it's such a tricky subject. In my example of the friend with the daughter who became anorexic, it obviously has to do more with the parents contentious relationship about food than with any problem the child has. But how do you parse those two apart? It's extremely difficult.

"Haute cuisine is "high" and apart from plain old French food. I would argue that Mexican home cooking can be every bit as complex as cuisine grandmere in France and every bit as worth of analysis, but the analytical cooks are doing the haute cuisine and not the other two. I'm not sure of my point other than to clarify the rules of the game or the boundaries of the playing field. We may not all be playing the same game here, however. " Gee I thought I said that earlier when I said it's a combination of complexity and popularity. It's not that people aren't interested in a good mole, it's that people *aren't trying to perfect their mole* to the same extent they are trying to perfect their potato gratin. Why that is the case is a different discussion but, it's clear this board has more interest in the latter than the former. But if we had a very strong Mexican board where numerous "amatuers de cuisine de Mexique" posted, there very well might be numerous nuanced recipes for making different types of mole posted on that board.

For every ten success stories you guys can write about, there's a disaster out there somewhere. We know people where the husband eats everything and the wife is extremely picky. So when they had a daughter the husband went out of his way to make sure the kid ate everything. And it was successful to the point where she was eating things like oysters at a very young age, something her mother would never eat. But when the kid started to hit her early teens, she became anorexic or bulemic I can't remember which. Are they connected? Who knows. But this type of story isn't unusual to hear about kids with eating disorders. That is why the advice is to tread carefully.

Robert S - You and I are speaking about two different things. My comment only goes to how much interest a thread on boiling eggs would drum up on a place like eGullet. I have no doubt that somebody masterful could start a thread on the boiling of eggs that would wow us. It's just that the number of people who are in a position to do that, and who could make the conversation be interesting and to keep it that way is probably limited to Madelaine Kamman and a handful of other people. Whereas a thread that is started about how to make a proper Bolognese or ragu would not only probably be better attended than one on egg boiling, anyone could start the thread. There is so much nuance to making one, from the list of ingredients to how you chop them to the type of olive oil to the....... Now whether Pepin's method for butchering a poulet is interesting or not, is not what my comment is directed at. My comment is directed at *what we generally seem to be interested in.* I would think that most people here who want to make Poulet Saute, don't want to butcher the chicken themselves. They are happy having the guy at Jefferson Market do it. And if someone posted a thread about how to butcher a chicken for that purpose, there would be a response but it would be limited. But I would bet a thread with tips as to how to get the skin on the poulet saute nice and golden, and how to get the right garlicky flavor to it would be very popular. Jaymes - It's not that it's just meat and spices. It's just that chopped meat isn't refined enough to instigate the same type of discussion that potato gratins do. That's part of the problem as well.

If you speak to anyone in NYC who works in the field of child psychology/psychiatry, they will tell you that an unusually large number of kids these days refuse to eat anything but simple foods like Liz's son. For some reason that they can't put their fingers on, their aversion to food seems to be in direct contrast our broadened interest in it. My sons fit that bill and we hear similar stories about others all of the time. I can't think of a restaurant we frequent (other than 3 star palaces) that doesn't keep a box of pasta in their kitchen to serve to kids along with melted butter. No greens etc. please. To think that you are going to be able to keep your kids out of places like McDonald's isn't realistic. Kids don't like McDonald's because of the food, it's the atmosphere and the social experience of going there. It also allows them to allocate a limited amount of their time to eating. Less time eating means more time playing video games. As for Domino's Pizza, of course I can believe a kid could like it better than brick oven pizza. After all, I've seen kids like Swiss Miss Hot Cocoa better than Jacques Torres special blend. The thing today about kids who don't eat is that professionals who deal with children with weight problems will tell you that unless a child's health is at issue you shouldn't intervene and force them to eat what they don't want to eat. They all say that in every case where intervention took place, huge eating disorders seem to occur at a later date. Better off like Liz and her son, to let it run it's proper course. The peer pressure of college, and having girlfriends/boyfriends who look at you crosseyed because you only eat Chicken McNuggets usully does the trick.

Sandra - Sounds like you need to call Kalyustan's. The world's best food store. If anyone has green walnuts.... In fact they might have the ready made jam.

Ay, ay, ay, ay, ay. I agree with Bux. All I'm saying is that there is less to say about boiling an egg than there is to say about making eggs benedict. But that doesn't mean that information about whether it should be a light boil or rolling, and what temperature the eggs should be when you throw them in the water, or how long to cook them and whether you douse them in cold water or not isn't relevent and interesting. But, and it's a very big but, I'm just pointing out that the conversations we have about things that are simple to prepare, get less responses than things that are more complicated to prepare, and which people around here are interested in preparing. The more interest we have in preparing something, and the more complex the preparation is both from a standpoint of quality of ingredients and hard to master technique, those seem to be the threads that get the most responses. Remember, this conversation started with a question about why publications like the Times and Saveur do a poor job writing about simple foods. All I did was give a reason as to why. My comment has nothing to do with whether a conversation on making hamburgers CAN BE INTERESTING. Of course it can. But that's not to say that the conversation doesn't have its limitations because it is difficult to make a conversation about a simple thing like a hamburger interesting. And that's why the Times and Saveur do a poor job at it. Fat Guy raises how haute cuisine chefs scramble eggs. One would think that would be a technique that everyone would be eager to learn. But in reality it isn't because unless you are having a fancy dinner party where you need to make those type of scrambled eggs, the type everyone already knows how to make is sufficient knowledge on the topic. So it doesn't really come up that often. And if it did, I would think it would be of limited interest. But how to get the skin of a roast chicken crispy, now that is something that people could probably write pages on.

Sandra - As a gross generalization, and this is my take on how the board reacts to things and not an in-depth study of the board, when someone posts on simple foods, the conversation usually runs to where you can get the best version and how good it tastes. For things like corn on the cob, people might post about a few different techniques, but as you can see, your method sufficed as THE recipe, although it's the weekend and people still might add to it. But when you ratchet the level of the dish up to potato gratin, the amount of nuance that goes into making the dish usually gives us somewhat more to talk about. Aside from the part of the thread where people announce how much they like potato gratin, you then have people chiming in with what or where their favorite version is. Then people talk about the various nuances in how their favorite version is prepared. Like boiling the potatoes in milk first or rubbing the gratin dish with a clove of garlic. You then have the entire meta discussion stage, if certain of us are so moved, that discusses the history and social aspects of potato gratins. I would think that as a general rule, what drives most threads is a funny combination of a dish having both complexity and popularity. Like someone else raised making chicken soup as something simple that is worth discussing. And I will add roast chicken to that list. But the fact of the matter is that making a good roast chicken and a good chicken soup *is not so simple.* Plain doesn't translate to simple. But since making a good one is within our grasp, discussion of the nuances in how to make good versions would be a popular thread. The fact of the matter is that the addition of a single herb to a chicken soup can change it's entire complexion. Squeeze a lime in the soup or throw some tarragon in at the right moment, or some chopped dill and it can transport us from Mexico to France to Russia. And I'm sure if someone started a Chicken soup thread, all the variations would kick in. But if you haven't noticed, nobody was reallly interested in discussing hamburgers from a worldwide chopped meat perspective. That can only be for two reasons, and I would love for somebody else to add other reasons if they have them. One, it's easy to make, and two, the end result can only be so good. The best hamburger, kofte, bowl of chile is great. But they don't have the soul that a great chicken soup has.

"Steven Shaw has said that he avoids degustation menus on a first visit unless they feature the chef's signature dishes." I don't understand this as you can always ask the chef to substitute one or two of his signature dishes into the degustation menu. I don't know a chef in France who wouldn't be happy to do so.

"The very first response to that thread has a recipe for corn" Sandra - Okay. If you want to call putting corn in a pot of boiling water a recipe. That's like saying "place the hamburger on a hot grill" is a recipe. I meant recipe as in *unusual and different way to prepare it.* Soba is the only other one who offers a recipe but it's for corn bread. And the whole thread currently has only 19 responses. How can that be when corn is such a great item?

Everyone wants to turn my comment ABOUT COOKING TECHNIQUE into a point about populism. Take Jon's comment about an egg, a conversation about soft boiling an egg isn't very exhilerating. But conversations about shirred eggs, or coddled eggs are much more interesting because the level of technique one has to apply to preparing eggs in those styles is more demanding than soft boiling. Capsico? So my point about choucroute and a hot dog and kraut on a bun isn't about subjectively determining which one is better, it's ackowledging that objectively making a good choucroute is more demanding a task, and as a result, choucroute is more interesting to talk about (preparing) than a ballpark frank. And it's for that very reason why fancy restaurants serve choucroute, but don't serve hot dogs on buns. Margaret - May I remind you that whilst it is something you and I do all the time, spending $20 on some fermier fromage and some cherries isn't exactly cheap. Families eat more than an entire meal on that amount of money. But I hear you and they must have been quite good. Who was the cheesemaker? Orik - It isn't that foods that are simple to make merit less discussion, it just so happens that there is less to discuss about preparing them. To prove this point, all you have to do is to look at any thread someone starts here about a simple food. Look at B Edulis's corn thread. While people are waxing rhapsodic about the deliciousness of sweet corn, there is no discussion about how to prepare it. Last I looked, I was the only person who added a "recipe" to the thread. Mark Stevens - According to Robert Peason of Pearson's fame, who I ran into at Kitchen Arts & Letters last week, making BBQ is all about getting the right equipment. Mr. Pearson also added that there is a place in Syracuse/Rochester called Dinosaur that he thought was making some superior BBQ these days. Jon - No the difference between choucroute and a hamburger *is* a sharp a line. Think of it like music, like the difference between playing This Land is Your Land and Giant Steps. To play a saxophone solo at almost breakneck speed that is a cycle of thirds that changes every bar, is much more technically demanding than strumming a 1-5-4-5 chord pattern on an acoustic guitar. And that isn't a value judgement to say which is better, it's just an ackowledgment that you can learn how to do one in a week, and the other you could practice your entire life and still not get it right. Same with the burger/choucroute. If you knew nothing about cooking, it would take you far longer to master the technique of making a good choucroute than it would to make a good burger. Why? Because the choucroute is more nuanced. There are more variables. Just figuring out how to drain the sauerkraut of water without eliminating the acidity is the type of challenge that doesn't exist when making burgers. Fat Guy - Of course my comments do not go to eating "cheap eats" or finding them. The glorys of places like White Manna will never fade. But, none of us are sitting on the edge of our seat trying to learn how the grillman at White Manna does it. That you told us how, or that I explained how White Castle does it is anecdotal at best. Now exactly how much green tea powder to put in your dessert, or what to do with your potatoes before placing them in the gratin, now that's not anecdotal. Jaymes - Alas we are all out of the oil in question. A old and dear friend schleped back a two liter bottle for me many years ago. Although it is not supposed to last, we used it for years. A favorite use was a splash in a saute pan to finish off some scallops. But my wife in one of her cleaning fits didn't realize what it was and threw it away. Dommage as it was one of the single best food items I ever had.

"But if there WERE only one obscure village in France that prepared hot dogs, and you were the first outsider to discover it, you'd return home from that gustatory revelation a new man." Jaymes - I don't know. A sausage is a sausage is a sausage. It's just ground meat and spices. It has its limitations as great as it can be. But the walnut oil, or a jar of home made tomato paste from Tuscany, or aged balsamic vinegar, those things transcend place in the way that a sausage never could.

Jon - Well in my simple mind, discussing food is in reality discussing two things. The quality and the uniqueness of the ingredients and the type and level of technique applied. Do you disagree with that? I mean yes there is the social aspect, the politics of it, etc. But the food itself, what is there but ingredients and technique? I think that most things that are better, are better, because better technique has been applied and more interesting ingredients have been used. Choucroute is a "better" dish than a hot dog in a bun with sauerkraut because it involves an elaborate preparation of the sauerkraut with goose fat, garlic, bacon, smoked pork chops, white wine, spices etc. And while I like a good dog on a bun, it's nowhere as interesting to discuss as to how to make a good choucroute, or even how you eat one. It's the same with a pie. I might be wrong but, it seems to me that making perfect leaves for a millefeiulle is more demanding than making a pie crust. Hence, more interesting to discuss. That there is room to discuss all of these things on eGullet isn't the issue. The Internet has unlimited space so one can discuss anything they want. But the question was, why are articles on hamburgers always so disappointing?I'm just being the messenger that the lovers of hamburgers want to shoot because I'm pointing out their likeability far exceeds their being interesting. Saying this another way, it's why Chowhound is less interesting than eGullet. There they believe the hamburger is the end all and be all. And my being glib about the limitations of hamburgers is not something they want to hear over there. Jaymes - Well that point goes to it being mundane. But there is another issue at play. The walnut oil in question is the zenith of walnut oils. Is the best hot dog as profound as the best walnut oil? Not in my book. That's one of the issues here and I don't think it is overcome by claiming that rarity has an impact. Blue Heron - Well when you get into moles, or roasting spices for a curry, you are starting to get into a certain level of complexity that spans well beyond where any discussion of hamburgers can take you. But when you talk about slow cooked steak, you make my point exactly. Steak was interesting to discuss *when applying a completely different technique when making it.* It's not the steak that made the discussion interesting, it's the new and different technique used to make the steak.

Trying to cover all the responses here. I think to focus on money is a mistake. It isn't that things aren't as interesting and nuanced because they are inexpensive, it's just that most inexpensive things happen to fit the description of being less interesting. And while a conversation about a pizza can be interesting, what can you discuss, how to make and roll out the dough? That's all it is with ingredients laid on top. And while those of us who might want to make one at home will be interested in that discussion, I submit it doesn't have the same level of nuance involved as getting the broth in your bollitto misto just right. And that's why pizza chefs make less money than the chef at Fini in Modena. And I think when Andy raises food in Malaysia, or even when I eat in Chinatown, you can't compare the cost of those types of meals with food at a French influenced restaurant. Asian food seems to have it's own discreet economic system that doesn't apply to other food types. But if you strip cost away and just look at the methods of preparation, the same level of nuance isn't there as in cuisines that utilize more complex technique. Look at Japanese food. It is highly technical to be able to prepare the food to be an exact shape and size. There is an entire technique devoted to the slicing of fish. I never see Japanese chefs hacking up a soy sauce chicken like they do in a Chinese restaurant. And because the food preparation and service is so delicate and so demanding, and since the success of the cuisine is so dependant on the quality of ingredients, the cost of Japanese food is radically different than the cost of Chinese food. Beachfan makes a good point about the difference between mundane and cheap which is another point I had made in the same post as the one Fat Guy quoted me from. The pursuit of the best hot dog just doesn't turn me on so much anymore. I mean there you have Fat Guy saying that Hebrew National is entry level, and people waxing rhapsodic about Usinger's. But I have to say that if I never tasted a Usinger, and all I ate were Hebrew National or Boar's Head, I wouldn't care very much. After all, it's just a hot dog and hot dogs are sort of mundane at this point. Not that I don't like to eat them because I do. But I don't see the virtue in them the way I did ten years ago. But I would travel quite a long distance for the promise of the best chevre or to buy a bottle of the best olive oil. And I'm tempted to fly to France just to go to the Dordogne to that walnut oil mill because of all the ingredients I ever had in my house, it had the greatest impact per tablespoon of any we ever used. But for a hot dog? I'd have to be passing by. Or you'd have to tell me it was the greatest thing since chopped liver. Now that would be a tough one.

How did my original comment, which seemed to be applauded at the time become something that I had to defend? Hmmmm. My point is much narrower than you have portrayed it to be. And it is consistant with something I have said on these boards many times in the past. The reason that "cheap eats" is often less interesting to discuss is that the *technique applied* to making the food isn't very demanding. For example, two of my favorite "cheap eats" are to be found on McDougal Street in the village. Yatagan for the best doner around and Mamoun's makes terrific falafal and shwarma. But the skillset required to prepare those three dishes isn't very demanding. I am sure if any of us got a job working at either place, even if we had no experience doing any cooking, that within a matter of days, or maybe a week or two we would be making them proficiently. Now you could say the same thing about boiling a lobster but you can't say that about making a lobster bisque. At least a good lobster bisque for that is nuanced in many ways. It's for this reason that cheap eats are cheap. The labor is basically untrained and the ingredients are basic. Neither of those things are true for more demanding preparations which rely on top quality ingredients and technique that has been honed and perfected over years. So when I say that discussing "cheap eats" (hamburgers) isn't interesting to discuss, it means that there is a limited amount of technique to apply to making them. Same with hot dogs. I even find instructions and discussions on making steaks to be boring. Not that the occassional tip doesn't merit being noticed but, it's basically throw them on the fire and when they feel like the fat part of your palm they're done. Now a fire, how to make one and when to spread the coals and how hot to cook at and should it be direct, indirect, etc., now that's a nuanced conversation. But how to shape the patties? My statement also is not directed at disussing the art of finding and eating a good hamburger. I have unlimited attention for recommendations that are worthy. And I have the time and inclination to jump in my car and go check out the worthy ones. But in the same breath I have to say that as I've gotten older, I'm less impressed than I used to be. There was once a time when I would drive out of my way to try the deep fried hot dogs at a place like Swanky Franks because the Stern's recommended it. But at my age, having had the eating experiences of nearly 50 years, I don't need to do the cheap eats thing as sport and I can be honest about how disgusting those franks really are. I think I have made that quantum leap on a number of different foods. Like the discussion we had a few months back on BBQ when both Fat Guy and I said that most BBQ is junk. A very unpolitically correct statement with the cheap eats crowd. But that Fat Guy and I, we know how to take risks.

Eh, if I miss any pizza at all it ain't the NY style. It's a nice wood burning oven, thin crust, European style anchovy pizza that is available in any coast city from Marseille to Salerno.

Nina - I have a wheat intolerance. No more pizza for me. That's why no DiFara's.

Tony - Oh so that's what I tasted in my balti at Lahore . I didn't think that Beachfan would trek to the East End for Lahore. For some reason, vegetarian doesn't go with dirty if you know what I mean. As for Veereswarmy, I think I went after the new owners took over because the "inventive" menu seemed to be in place. At the time, a bunch of people were saying it was the best Indian in London. I couldn't see it at all.