Steve Plotnicki

Tommy-Sweet sauces in Chinese food? Usually soy sauce is bad with wine. I find that Gewurz handles the soy better than others. As for NZ SB, I think the grassy quality is what makes them go well with Thai food. Otherwise I would never drink the stuff as I am a purist. That's why I didn't like the curry sprinkled on Hoffman's Langouste dish. But with Indian food I promise you an Auslese is best. Try it.

Shaw-Sometimes one takes the long way home. But as to "whack," hey I used to be in the rap music business (still am in a way) and I learned how to use the word from the people who coined the phrase. LML-Gee I haven't made any claims here about the food being shit in this thread. This thread simplified it all by setting a lower hurdle for they "Yeas" to jump over by asking them to point to *any instance at all* where it is in favor. And I might add, so far nobody has pointed to a single instance where game pies or haggis are in favor. As for how far down the rung the quality of the food is, as far as I'm concerned it is in direct corrolation to the number of places serving it. But as I've said to Wilfrid, this thread is to document the fact that the cuisine lacks appeal, and not a search for the perfect adjective to describe it.

Wilfrid-For hopefully the last time, I have said in both of those paragraphs you have quoted that "general quality of food there stank until about 1995." If you can't figure it out, that is the same statement as "across the board" in the other quote you posted. I just don't understand why you are so deperate to discredit my theory about it? You keep trying to twist my words until they mean something other than what I have said. And that is all in spite of the fact that regardless of how I have said it, whether I have been factualy accurate or not, possess a good knowledge of English history or not, or have made any other mistake that might be relevent to my point, all your arguing all your finagling all your kveching, prodding, poking and irksomeness, will not for a second change any of the facts that people are generally in agreement about. And I think I have offered up good evidence for that side of the argument. And I don't think you have really offered any for yours. What you keep doing is to try to discredit my arguments by putting a magnifying glass to them in order to highlight every word and every concept. My god, Plotnicki is wrong, That's it, the food does taste good because he was wrong about the date it changed. Stop, enough already with picking on me. Those arguments won't make the food taste any better. Where are those powerful arguments to show the importance of English cuisine? Where is your cassoulet, your bouillabaisse, your foie gras? Or are your arguments limited to exposing Plotnicki as a poor thinker? Okay I'll admit it. I'm a poor thinker and I do an awful job of framing an issue. But guess what? The food still tastes whack. To me none of this matters. If you like to eat game pie you have no issue with me. But if you want to go on believing that scraps of game cooked with suet in a pie crust made from white flour is fine eats, go right ahead. But please excuse me whilst I hold my nose when you eat it.

Adam-Fox Creek Sparkling Shiraz was one of the most deadly things I ever drank. I opened a bottle, poured some, and even before I tasted it the people in my house were screaming about the color which was black as mud. Nevertheless I was brave enough to taste it. Pure piss. The bottle was immediately poured down the drain. Now if you want a good sparkling red wine, try a Bugy de Cerdon from the Macon. Extremely delighful and sells for something like 10 pounds a bottle. As for Gewurz and Asian food, it depends on the cuisine. Even though I'm not a big fan of New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc's, they do go well with Thai food because of their grassiness. But if we switched to Chinese food I would prefer a Gewurz.

Wilfrid-Have you not seem Gosford Park? Those people had millions of servants . Did your family not live that way?

Over the years (let's say the last 15) I have been to Boyer on 3 different occassions. Once I drove for lunch from Paris, and twice I've stayed in the Chateau. I think it's fine and you can have a very good meal there but David Russell's observations about it are spot on. The chateau that houses the restaurant and the hotel is quite grand. It sits on something like a 15 hectare park. The rooms, at least when I stayed there were very opulent and felt like you were staying in a silk glove. Even the breakfasts were fantastic. It's a place I wouldn't mind returning to, it's just that if I was interested in a cutting edge goumet meal, that wouldn't be my first choice.

Just to stay away from food guys, a British friend once told me that at the turn of the century that 97% of the people worked in the service. That always sounded a bit high to me and after Wilfrid's calculations, doesn't sound possible. But it might be possible if it was 97% of the people outside of those who worked in factories or who served in the Armed Forces. Possible?

"Seriously, Steve, I have to read you closely because you have a neat technique (whether conscious or not) of revising your claims to suit the evidence. You have said two quite distinct things about the improvement on British food. First, without qualification, that it started to improve in about 1995 (yes, a year or two either way, who cares?)." Wilfrid-That is a bunch of horseshit. You have posted the example of where you claim I said that and in order to make that point you had to cut and paste the words. But more importantly, whether I said '94 or '64 is irrelevent. I think it is much later than you do. In fact, I think it is an entire generation later than you do. So why do you keep quibbling with me over the exact year? Even if I ammended my response to say 1985, we would still be 1/2 a generation off. So your comment that you need to read me carefully is a load of hooey. That is because you have been quibbling with me over a few years when our difference is a matter of nearly 2 1/2 decades. At least keep your arguments consistant. As fot the dishes you have raised, well I would think that those are more Italian/French in origin than British. But you could be right. But the key to whether a dish is British or French in nature comes down to, and I'm sorry to repeat myself but, how technique is applied to the dish. Is it chopped coarse or pureed to be smooth? Broths strained, or broths with little bits in it? What I'm getting to is that in almost every instance where Britain and France share a dish, the French have developed a cooking technique that produces a more refined version. And if we all were to examine those dishes, I think we will find that in almost every instance, the French version is the one that has become reknown the world over.

Willfrid-Did you not see where I said "ACROSS THE BOARD?" Do you have middle of the sentence disease? Shall I call the Optometrist and have him prescribe you those special glasses that narrow your vision until you are certain to see the middle of the sentence? Or can we just agree that my very generalized statement to Simon's question is consistent with what I have been saying? You know your insistance on vetting every sylable I write in order to say that I haven't stated a proper or valid point is tiring. You might not agree with my point but I submit it is clearly stated. I think the food is bad there, and it has been bad for a very long time. I also think there is no reason that it had to be bad. And I point to the fact that it is better today. It could have been better than also. But on that point, I have been clear as to when I felt it had reached a certain threshold of improvement and that date I have said is around 1994/5. I do not know how I can be any clearer than this. And if I am wrong about 1994/5 and it is really 1992, the general point stays the same. It used to be bad and now it's better. How bad and how much better isn't all that relevent to the fact that it *was* bad. And if you don't really understand the import of what I have said, I can only conclude that it is because you don't want to deal with the substance of it. Now you are going to have to excuse me because a lunch appointment at Peter Lugar's beckons.

I am quite pissed. I wrote a long response addressing the various issues that have been raised and then the system crashed and it was all lost. But since I think the topic is veering off course, let me try and get in back on track. Having read through the various responses, I will concede that things like Fish & Chips and Scones have become part of a worldwide food culture. And there are other food products that originate in the British Isles worth mentioning too. How about oatmeal or the American breakfast sausage? I'm sure if we think hard, we can make a longer list. But offering them really proves nothing and doesn't really speak to my point. I mean the hot dog is pervasive in U.S. food culture yet it would difficult for me to say that Americans like German cuisine as a result of it. In fact, Americans in general do not have much use for German cuisine. There are very few German restaurants they frequent, and updated versions of famous German dishes like Jaegerschnitzel and Sauerbratten are just not appearing on menus. So let's differentiate between food on the pizza place level and real cuisine. Because when I say that Italian food is pervasive in the U.S., it isn't based on the fact that we have a pizzeria on every block. It's based on the fact that we have proper Italian restaurants from nearly every region of Italy. So that should make my question even easier to answer. Forget about naming restaurants, just name some chefs that include famous British dishes on their menus. Show me where I can get something like haggis in any context. Tony-After reading your post, I flipped through my Gault Millau Europe 2000 guide and I can tell you that every city in Spain and Italy and Germany are loaded with ethnic restaurants of every type. Every single one of them had a Chinese restaurant and I even saw some Cambodian, Korean, Morrocan restaurants. And they all had both French and Italian respectively. One even had a Swiss restaurant. But none had one that was British. I am quite surprised that people are so defensive about this. So the food doesn't stand up to a comparison with food from other countries. What's the big deal? I mean I eat lots of things which I think taste good but when held up to the light are inferior to things that come from other countries. New England Clam Chowder is something that can be great. But it isn't anywhere as complex or nearly as sophisticated an expression of a soupy fish dish as a Soupe de Possons, Bouillabaisse, Cacciucco, Zarzuela, Waterzooi, etc. And that is why they don't have restaurants in Europe that serve it there. It isn't a unique enough expression of fish in broth to warrant its export, nor does it apply any technique that people would find interesting. And there isn't any demand for haggis or game pies anywhere else for the same reason. But in NYC, you can find every kind of soupy fish dish imagineable. In fact, it has become easier to get a soupe de possons here than it is a bowl of home made clam chowder. I know that sounds silly but I bet it is true. To be debating where things like Haggis and Game Pie fit into the scheme of things, doesn't seem like it would create much of an argument. I mean they are hardly served in England let alone surviving the burden of can you get a delicious version, no make that any version, in places like Lisbon or New York. One would think that piece of information is telling. But like anything else, those who like haggis will offer an excuse, and those who don't will gladly shout out an "I told you so." But one would think that any fair and reasonable person who was at all trying to be objective would reach a conclusion that voted "nay" based on the evidence that has been put forth. Unless someone can show me that Mrs. Lovett wasn't the most relevent Game Pie baker of this century. Wilfrid-You are a knucklehead. I haven't said anywhere that British food started improving around 1994/5. I have said that it was around that time that ENOUGH "good food" establishments opened in London so one could say that the food had improved overall. Simon's question was when did the food stop being "crappy?" I say when London HAD ENOUGH PLACES TO SAY IT HAD CHANGED. That's when it stopped.The question wasn't when did it start getting better? Understand yet?

Steve-Well if you insist on changing my question, of course it won't prove anything. I have no interest in how the British might have influenced our cuisine. I'm quite content to give them credit for the things we got from them like those cottony tasting white bread buns they serve at seafood restaurants in New England. And I'm ready to give other cuisines like German food which seem to have gotten lost in a culinary wasteland credit for things like the hot dog. But that is not what the original post was about. This post was started because certain people were claiming that things like haggis, steak and kidney pie, game pie, i.e., traditional British food was delicious. And when I said that people outside of England generally think of the cuisine as horrible, the Brits on the board refused to believe me. So I have asked, if the stuff is so good, how come that English restaurants aren't springing up everywhere like Starbucks? As for demographics, the issue isn't how many Chinese frequent Chinese restaurants, or how many Japanese visit sushi places, the issue is how many non-ethnic diners frequent those places? NYC is a diverse place. If you go into a Chinese restaurant, everyone is eating there. Jews, Italians, Russians, the whole kit and kaboodle. Now show me just one ethnic group who has even the slightest desire to eat English cuisine. To me this is the simplest explanation we have come across in any thread I've participated in. People vote with their stomachs. And the reason we have lots of French, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, etc. is the food is delicious. And the reason we don't have as many British, German, Polish, Swedish, etc. restaurants is the food *isn't* anywhere as delicious. And you have proven that if it's good and you build it (as in French,) people will come. But if it isn't really good, you are basically limited to your own ethnic group. So list away. People might like roast beef with horseradish but there are hardly any restaurants that serve roast beef anymore. And fish and chips? Gee is Manhattan abound with fish and chip places? Not unless when you say fish and chips the word is intended to describe souvlaki. And marmalade? Is that a British contribution? I always thought confiture was a French thing? But I guess you're right. Tomorrow I am going to go down to 22nd street and get a roast chicken at The English Butcher, whoops, I mean French Butcher. Lesley C-I believe you. But is it expats or people who have a connection to the homeland? I also understand that in Paris M & S has a large British food section that is popular. Maybe this is the start of English food becoming popular. But I always believe in the strength of numbers. If the demand was so great, they wouldn't have closed it in the first place.

I used to live right down the block from Knish Nosh. They're okay but nowhere as good as Mrs. Stahl's. I think they make a liver knish though. Can't remember for sure. Stick with Mr's Stahls. They're the real deal. But if you go out to Knish Nosh, one block west there used to be a pretty good Hungarian bakery (Rego Park was where the Hungarians settled after the Russians invaded in 1956) that made a mean cherry strudel. Many Hungarians came to the U.S. with money and they could afford to live in the fancy Jewish neighborhoods like Rego Park and Forest Hills. As an aside, Knish Nosh had a Manhattan branch for many years on 4th Avenue between 13th & 14th Street. It was there as recently as 10 years ago. Maybe less.

Snowstorm-Sorry I hadn't read all of the other threads before posting. D'Chez Eux is as Mogsob describes and has quite a bit of wow factor as well. They offer a huge basket of charcuterie laden with all types of sausages and they have a chariot filled with bowls of various salads. They also have a gigantic dessert cart and offer unlimited servings of chocolate mousse, creme caramel etc. The atmosphere is a bit sedate although when the chariots arrive at your table they liven things up. But I would tend to avoid Le Dome. They serve fine fish there but it is about as boring a place as you could imagine and it won't do anything for your daughter. My wife and I almost fell asleep at lunch there last May.

Wilfrid-Among the "great" knishes at Mrs. Stahls is a cabbage knish. It is a one of a kind thing that I've only seen there. And I can vouch for Mrs. Stahls having had a houseguest last summer who brought a large box of knishes as a gift. All flavors till tops with Cherry Cheese a long tterm SP favorite. And comparing it to Yonah Shimmel is a no contest. Stahl's is 10 times better. You know if you actually go out to Brighton to check it out, first of all save lots of time to walk around out there as it will be like walking aorund in Russia. But also, just two subway stops closer to the city is the famous Sahara, best Turkish I know of in town.

Fatus-The export of Modern British cuisine is non-existent if you ask me. In fact the phrase "Modern British" is used to describe anything cooked in London that isn't French or Italian. A risotto made by Alastair Little is modern British because after all, he is a British chef. But the same risotto made by Antonio Carlucci is Italian. But something that is truly Modern British like the Griddled Scallops with Peas and Mint at Kensington Place, that isn't something that there is a demand for outside of Britain. Otherwise, this thread was really started not as a way to examine current day trends in British dining, it was started to prove whether people in countries outside of Britain "cared for" British cuisine. And based on the evidence you put forth on that list that came up on Citysearch, I will vote no.

Wilfrid-The Liebling is on page 52 of the paperback copy of "Back Where I Came From" and it is called "Not Quite Gone are the Days" Otherwise you have shifted the pea. On the British food thread, I made a statement that people from other countries than Britain who are part of what we call the "Western World" think poorly of British cuisine. Everyone jumped on me for saying it and I got the usual challenge of "prove it!" So I have offered the fact that there isn't any interest for the cuisine outside of Britain, and also showed evidence that there is acute interest in other cuisines in almost every other country. So I ask you if that isn't proof that the cuisine is.... Well pick your adjective. You can start with lacks interest and end with shit. The argument about the degree of crappiness is simply a diversion. Let's just stick with the original premise and ask, why if the food is so good aren't there any restaurants that serve it? And does the fact that there aren't any mean what I say it means?

Fat Guy-I'm not sure about Liebrandt. Is he a MPW guy or really of the El Bulli/Heston school? But I would accept examples of Modern British cuisine being a "type" of restaurant. I just don't think Liebrandt is it. And I can't speak about Hawksworth. And yes you are also correct when you say that there are bits of British cuisine that we adopted like the sandwich. In fact the Brits do well with us before dinnertime. As for the Chop House, the British version (Keen's) is not the type that became popular here. Our chop houses grew out of the speakeasys (mainly run by Italian and German immigrants) which proliferated the west 50's during prohibition. In fact, the chapter on speakeasys written by A.J. Liebling is not only among the best food writing I ever read, is among the best writing I have ever laid eyes on. And our traditional seafood restaurants are British in nature as well. Everything from fried clams to boiled shore dinners. They all come from a British perspective. But in terms of current cuisine and technique? Nada, unless you rely on Liebrandt and he is hardly a trend all by himself. LML-I guess I have you stumped (that is because there aren't any ) Believe me I would be happy for you to point to some. But let's be honest okay. The reason you aren't isn't because of me, it's that they do not exist. Come on admit it. It's only fair.

Gee guys. You are all taking this too personally. I have given you my honest opinion and I am trying to be objective about it. If we were discussing what we eat in the States, I would have no problem tearing it apart to expose how shitty the food is there. I wonder why many of you can't look at how poor your cuisine is in the same way? But like I've been saying, let's not argue about it. Let's let others decide. Since you think I am biased, I've given you all the chance to show me how much others like the cuisine. Just go over to the new post and spit it out. The examples I mean, not the haggis.

Since my assertions on the various threads about the general quality of British cuisine have been met with the usual requests for empirical evidence, and since my statments that all the Americans, French, Italians, Germans, Dutch, and everyone else I know who feels the same way about it have been rejected as unsubstantiated, I thought about how I might go about proving any of these things. Then I thought that a good way to do it might be based on evaluating the relevency of British food outside of Britain. And when I realized that outside of pubs, where the cooking is done by, well, hardly someone who would qualify as a chef the way we use the term, I realized that it was easy. That is because nobody eats British food outside of Britain. So I can say that here in NYC, we have lots of French and loads of Italian restaurants. Chinese, Japanese and Thai up the wazoo. We have lots of Middle Eastern restaurants and loads of Indian places. And Mexican? Tons. Argentine steak houses and Brazilian Churascuarrias. And Russian restaurants. from every part of the USSR that split off. Uzbekistan, Georgian etc. But British? Is it one or two? And they hardly could be called grand affairs. And they are frequented mostly by expatriot Brits! Where is this great cuisine I've been hearing about? Where on a Saturday night are they lined up to eat haggis and steak and kidney pie and the piece de resisitance, game pies like they are lined up to eat soup dumplings at Joe's Shanghai or spaghetti and clam sauce at Don Pepe's? In NYC? In France, Italy, Madrid, Budapest or Berlin? In Tokyo or Bangkok? Are there great British restaurants in those countries they have been hiding from me? Please tell me, if the food is so good, why isn't it in demand in other countries the way other cuisines are? Aside from pubs, where the thrust is on drinking and not on the food, the only other thing I can think of that comes from England is the Tea Parlor concept, which is not entirely an English concept although an English Tea is clearly a defined culinary concept. And you can take tea each day at The Plaza or at The Pierre and there still might be an English Tea Parlor in the city somewhere, Mrs. Something or other. But that is pretty much the end of the line for the British contribution to current NYC food culture. So I ask those who say the food is delicious, where is the proof? Who is clammoring for it? Who is serving Arbroath Smokies here? We have every type of smoked fish going in this town but for some reason, haddock has not been swimming up our rivers. And you know what, I quite like a smoked haddock poached in milk and served on mashed potatoes. But it is never something I would desire to eat outside of the U.K. Well to me, that there isn't a clammor is sufficient evidence to say that outside of the U.K., people have no interest in British food. Can one draw the conclusion that it is because the food isn't great? All too easily if you ask me. But I will stand corrected if someone can point out where this great cuisine, with all it's delicious dishes is being served? But outside of the British Isles please. There's no need to prove that Brits like the food. I accept that they do. Just show me who else does.

Wilfrid-You're right about a Frito Misto. But I haven't seen any battered Goujons, though I'm not saying somebody doesn't batter them. But you haven't answered my game pie question. Andy-There is no reductionism involved. My paragraph is exactly what I wrote. And the last sentence needs the rest of the paragraph as context. You can't just eliminate it to change the context of it all. As for the statement, I will gladly stand behind it but we aren't in agreement about the basic premise. When I say why is it crap? In order to have a discussion we have to first agree that it is crap. So let's change the topic so we can explore for example, whether things cooked with suet taste as good as things cooked with goose fat or other cooking fuels. We'll just have to prove it's crap the hard way. Ingredient by ingredient.

Okay you brought up a new topic so I'm going to start a new thread on ethnic and peasant food and how they compare from country to country. Let's kill this thread because we are never going to agree on wether steak and kidney pie tastes good or not (it doesn't) . But we can compare what peasants ate across the board and see who lived better. But I assume that a game pie is like a Chicken Pot Pie only with scraps of game instead of chicken. Meat, gravy thickened with flour or corn starch and cubes of vegetables that are all baked in the pie and soften as a result. Pie crust on top. Is that it or am I missing something? Or do they put a whole dder under pastry?

Andy-Gee that cut and paste thing works great. Especially when you leave out the relevent bit. I said, "If you don't think they are awful relative to the type of food they eat in France and Italy, not to mention Spain and Germany, there is no basis for the discussion." Not that I don't think they aren't awful on their own. They indeed are. But at least if you are going to criticize me, do it for what it is I've said and don't leave the important bits out. As for fish and chips in particular, how come none of the four countries I have mentioned have a battered and fried fish as a main course? I can only think of a friture in the Loire but that's an appetizer. Isn't it that fish and chips came about because it was a easy way to flavor cheap fish (plaice, otherwise flavorless) and that the better quality fish went elsewhere? But like I said, the reason we can't have this discussion is that people don't agree on the quality of the food in the first place.

Snowstorm-Okay, here is my 2 million cents. If I understand upbeat to mean lively and fun, La Regalade will have the most "atmosphere," or it will be the biggest scene of the 4 you have mentioned. Among your list, it and L'Epi Dupin are similar in size but I think La Regalade attracts some part of the fashion crowd so it comes off as somewhat trendy at times. L'Epi Dupin I hear from countless friends who have gone has become dominated by American clientele. I don't know if that is important to you but you probably won't hear anything but English there. But neither place can be termed comfortable. La Maree is a place I ate at 20 years ago but a friend of mine now lives down the street and I've poked my head in on a number of occassions. Nothing has changed. It is much more formal than the other places mentioned and the atmosphere is sophisticated and sedate. I don't know if it is important to you but they have a fabulous well priced wine list there, especially white Burgundys to go with the fish they serve. The house specialty dish in Oysters in Champagne Sauce. I can't speak for L'Astrance but I am sure it is more sophisticated cuisine wise than any of the other places mentioned. Not sure of the ambiance but it doesn't sound as it if it is lively. Now having said all of that, may I say that if I had just one meal in Paris, and I was loooking for wow factor and not at a three star type of establishment, I would opt for dinner (or lunch) at L'Ami Louis. Not everyone will agree with me because they think it is touristy but, to me it is the quintessential French bistro. I've never had a meal there that wasn't loads of fun. And I think the food happens to be great and simply cooked bistro cuisine. It's just that the portions are so large that everyone there is giggling all of the time. But my recomendation can't do it justice. The New York Times ran a review of it a number of years back calling it the world's greatest bistro. It's worth paying the $2.50 for the reprint from the archives because if you like that type of place, nothing can beat it. Lesley C.- As a way of backing into the subject, have you read Gopnik's book Paris to the Moon? For the second part of the articles that comprise the book he lives just upstairs from Aux Fins de Gourmets. And he takes the food editor from one of the newspapers there for lunch. It's almost an entire chapter. But I have to say, considering how many years I have been staying in that neighborhood, I have never eaten there once. It always looks so dreary. For a number of years one of the books that list places by the dishes they serve listed the confit de canard at Aux Fins as one of the best. But about 2-3 years ago it fell off the list which knocked them a few pegs further down my list of places to try. But now you have rekindled my interest.

Wilfrid- A few things. You asked which things on Tony's list were awful. Here they are. 1. English pies and savoury puddings-steak and kidney,beef and oyster,game and rabbit pies,pork pies 3. Fish and chips If you don't think they are awful relative to the type of food they eat in France and Italy, not to mention Spain and Germany, there is no basis for the discussion. That is why we are having a hard time having this discussion, The entire Western world outside of England thinks they taste awful. Why are you having such a hard time believing me about it? And then this, "Why did people stand for working as servants? I just cannot fathom that sort of question." What do you mean? That question is the basis of the whole issue. The French refused to so they eliminated their aristocracy and and the Americans refused to and eliminated the British. The British population didn't have to tolerate the Enclosure Laws (which seem to be at the heart of the food demise.) How come they didn't rise up against it because what they were given to eat was shit? I don't understand why you are squeemish about this point? There has to be some corrolation between the democratic process, wealth distribution, and things like the quality of food, housing, education, etc. that are offered to the public. They have to be indicative of the quality of the process. For a democracy (England,) to have 85% of the population working as servants, when those same people have a majority which can vote in a law that bans someone from having servants, or regulates their wages etc., and that they didn't, doesn't make any sense. And the food they ate, from how it got that way through why it stayed that way has to be a function of the same issues. And from my perspective, those were all issues that arose well before any of the wars of the 20th century ever happened.

Adam-Thank you, thank you thank you. Except you Brits (and I'm including you as part of the colonies) need to get your stories straight. First I said that there were classes in society and then Adam Lawrence said there wasn't. And now you said there was. In fact, you have just said that 85% of the people were servants. Which one is it? There also seems to be a split as to whether the food was bad or not. But I do not see how I can read your responses any other way than as an admittance of it being bad. Then there has been my argument that if the food was bad, it was a function of a "plot," the greed of the landowners combined with the readiness of the government to control both the quantity and quality of what people ate. But many people here have argued against that. But if I read your last post correctly, that is effectively what happened. This Plotnicki is indeed confused. But I say that no matter how we get there, we always get to the same place. How come? Not only the food, all of it. Why the hell did 85% of the population stand for being household servants? I mean the quality of the food they ate was just one aspect of their getting kicked with the toe of the boot. And this is exactly Drew Smith's point if I recall correctly. He says the reason the French have good food is because they wouldn't agree to live for the exclusive benefit of the aristocracy. So a bountiful table became a symbol of the French revolution. So while it's agreed that the negative impact suffered by England during the wars was greater than that suffered by either France or Italy, that conveniently overlooks at the fact that the British decided to make their bed a certain way more than 100 years before the wars ever happened. And that their agro-systems were teetering as to quantity, but had already been destroyed as to quality before the wars ever happened. And when they did come, the bottom fell out. Is that a correct assessment?