EJRothman

I thought the article said that it would be fine if you just removed the chicken skin and didn't eat it. Just don't complain about it. Once again, great article JAZ Yes, the article does say say that removing the skin is an option. However, Lesson #4 seems to indicate that some of the offensive food should be consumed. Since JAZ made it seem like the skin was an integral part of the chicken it would follow that not eating the skin would violate this lesson.-Eric

Ok, here's another question pertaining specifically to the article: I personally do not like chicken skin. When served chicken with skin, I just remove the skin and eat the chicken. The article seemed to imply that this would be acceptible guest behavior, although I got the impression that it would be frowned upon. What are other people's opinions? -Eric

I don't think quality has anything to do with it. It's possible to hold a title and be flat out bad at the profession. IMO Keller is a better chef, but I don't think Flay is a bad chef by any stretch, however. -Eric

Hey Electrolux, even I lump Keller and Flay together. Come on bro. They're both quality chefs. Maybe Keller could cook Flay into ash but that's a question of metier...Compare Keller to, oh I don't know, Keith Famie and I'll sit on your jury bench with a load of tnt. Wow, CWS, looks like I agree with you on something! (sort of) - Keller and Flay both qualify. However, asumming it's true (as another thread here on eG attests to), Kieth Famie, has culinary training and was one of the '89 Food & Wine 10 best new Chefs. Hence no TNT needed. -Eric

I never asserted that only culinary school grads are entitled to call themselves chefs. I simply stated that they are included in definition along with the many talented chefs who never went to culinary school. And yes, it's all relative. So everyone can agree to disagree. -Eric

Personally, I say once a chef, always a chef, much like other professions (notice the trend here boys and girls?). On the whole "a chef is a leader thing" and "the watering down of the term outside the industry," correct me if I am wrong, but aren't there different levels of chef-dom recognized in the industry? You've got your wander-in-once-a-week executive chef, your sous chef, your pastry chef (although one is apparently up to debate), and probably more chef-types that I am missing. Bux (I think it as Bux, if I am wrong, someone correct me) asserts that the definition of a chef must be one who leads. Etymologically this is correct. Definition wise, it is not. Websters says: Notice the secondary definition. I am not trying to assert that everyone who cooks is a chef. I am saying that when one has been culinarily trained they are a chef. They may work in the kitchen as a line cook as they move up in the ranks, but there is a fundamental difference between a culinary grad working the line on his/her way up and a career line cook. Of course, the career line cook may be far and away a better cook than the culinary grad on the line, but only the latter gets to throw around the chef title. -Eric

Ummmmm. They are regulated in their use of the title. They are regulated in the sense that they need to get the education to use the title, but once they have the education they have the title. Ummmm. So you believe it's legal to use the title & practice under the title without being licensed? use the title - yes; practice - no.

Ummmmm. They are regulated in their use of the title. They are regulated in the sense that they need to get the education to use the title, but once they have the education they have the title.

I like Stone's discussion of formalism versus informalism in determining the definition of a chef. As it is apparent, I am in the formalist camp. Although CWS seems to be waiting for me to become unraveled by my own words, that's not going to happen. I stick by my statements. I am quite well-raveled (though not as tightly wound as some ). MattB's quote above misses the point. Yes, lawyers and doctors, etc. are regulated, but they are regulated to ensure that they do not use their professional authority to cause harm. They are not regulated in their use of the title. It's the education that confers the title on them. A lawyer can be dis-bared, and a doctor can have his license to practice medicine revoked, but this does not mean that they are no longer lawyers or doctors. In fact, they can regain the license to practice without going back to school. Thus, title comes down to schooling. Go to school, get the education, get the title. In this sense the culinary arts are lagging behind other professions. You need to go to school to get a legal or medical education, but as of today you don't need to go to culinary school to get a culinary education, you can simply apprentice. Many years ago this, of course, was the case for lawyers and doctors as well. There were lawyers and doctors before law and med school. Students hitched on to an older, learned individual in the profession, learned the ropes and went out on their own. Just like law and medicine have moved to a degree-only profession, I believe that the culinary world is headed in that direction as well. The nostalgia factor makes many people either annoyed at or dissmissive of this position, but I believe it to be true, and I stand by every word that I've said. -Eric

Clearly we are on two different wave lengths somewhere on this issue. I can't pretend to know what you think about the subject of food and the industry. I can only go by what you have posted, both here and in other threads/forums. When it all boils down, I think that a chef is a profession like the many others out there. Sure, there are some chefs - many of them great - who have worked their way through the ranks, but that doesn't preclude culinary school grads from being called chefs - good, bad or otherwise. You disagree. You're wrong, but that's just my opinion. I do appreciate being called ignorant though, thank you . -Eric

That's simply because - and I've seen this on many other threads - you take a way to romantic approach to your profession. I am happy for you that you love your job, most people can't say the same. But you seem to think your profession answers to a higher authority, when, in realilty it is not on a different plane than any other profession. I love cooking, and I love eating. I know the joy of preparing a meal and eating at a good restaurant. The world, of course, would be worse off if chefs, and good chefs at that, did not exist. However, the same can be said for lawyers (go ahead scoff), doctors, and air conditioner repairmen (to name a few). -Eric *Thank you to Stone for highlighting the lawyer/practicing law dichotomy.

Dead serious, buddy. You know it is possible to have bad chefs. I never said that going to culinary school made anyone a good chef. Bottom line is that it's a professional school just like the other ones mentioned; go to a professional school, graduate, earn the right to be known as a professional in said field of study. Doesn't necessarily mean the person is good at what he/she does, just means they have the right to be known by the title. -Eric * pogophiles point about needing to pass the bar exam to become a lawyer is a valid criticism of my argument, however there are numerous other professional school which don't require further examinations/courses of study after graduation.

As I said, it's possible to work your way through the ranks. Granted I'm not in the business, but with the meteoric rise of culinary fascination, I'd think that a culinary degree will only become increasingly important in the restaurant world. I am sure you are a very good chef, and I applaud your dedication and love for your craft. I also agree wholeheartedly that Thomas Keller is a chef, one of the finest in the country at that. On a slightly unrelated note, you should look into detaching youself from his, uh..., "nether regions" for the sake of your health and sanity. -Eric

Yes, I'd agree. If you apprentice of otherwise work your way up the kitchen ladder you'd still qualify. Seems to me, however, that as the profession becomes increasingly popular there may be a movement to mandate culinary school degrees much the same way degrees are needed in law and medicine (and of course, the clown-ing business ). -Eric

OK, I’ve had enough. Time to sound off (deep breath): Some of the posts on this thread are simultaneously laughable and nauseating. The definition of a chef doesn’t read like the script of a soap opera as some of you feel it does. Get off your respective high horses! It’s simple – if a person graduates from culinary school they’re a chef. Same as if a person graduates from med school they’re a doctor, from law school they’re a lawyer, from clown college, they’re a clown. Chefs straight out of culinary school need to put their time in on the line before becoming accomplished chefs, just like doctors out of med school need to put in their time doing rounds before becoming surgeons (or whatever other specialty they choose), lawyers fresh out of school need to put in shit hours doing tons of work before they make partner, and clowns probably need to put in their time at the state fair before working for Cirque de Solie (sp?). This country is teeming with lawyers and doctors but you don't hear them weeping and waxing poetic about their business equivilent of “the need to devote your soul to the food, to pay your dues before obtaining the unobtainable, before discovering life’s true meaning – THE TITLE OF CHEF!” It’s pathetic. Stop it. Now. -Eric *Disclaimer – I understand and grant that the meaning of chef was different before the advent and popularity of culinary schools, people had to work their way up in the business. Times have changed and so have definitions.

I remember from my cookie-eating days that Weiss Choice chocolate chip cookies were excellent. (From Weiss/Mr. Z supermarkets in NE PA) -Eric

Urfa Pepper - "Another exceptional dried red pepper from Turkey. A whole new flavor; absolutely, positively, worth trying."

It would have been even better if you left 1 cent as the tip. That way the waiter knows that you didn't just forget!

Brooklyn Heights is not Bensonhurt (sp?). It's not in the heart of Brooklyn, it's one stop out of Manhattan. There is no discernable difference in the accent from the majority of Manhattan.

Brooklyn Heights

Phoenetically, there is little to no accent in those brought up in the city. It's the boroughs. Trust me. The city is too international and too cosmopolitan to pick up that type of accent. New York City IS defined as Manhattan. Elsewhere, you have Brooklyn, Queens, etc.. Who says lets go to the city and ends up in Brooklyn? They mean Manhattan. Brooklyn use to be the 4th largest city in the world. It was still called Brooklyn. As far as accents go, exceptions can be made to any rule. Sure, New York is too cosmopolitan for any accent to be hard and fast across the plethora cultures that call it home. But I have been in many a place outside of New York City, where people have asked me if I was from New York - Not Brooklyn, not Queens, Not The Bronx - but New York. The tip off? My accent. -Eric

I'll bet you anything these people were not from the city. People from the island have little to no accent. There is definately a New York accent. Ask any New Yorker to say 'orange', 'forrest", or other words with the same 'o-' sound and the accent will be apparent. The rest of the country says 'OR-ange' and 'fORrest', but to a New Yorker it's 'ARE-ange' and 'fARErest'. Finally, New York should not merely be defined as Manhattan. With rising real estate prices many Manhattanites are moving to areas of the 'outer-boroughs' which then become remarkably similar to their Manhattan bretheren. I.e. Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, Williamsburg - and to a lesser extent - Fort Greene, Astoria, and Jackson Heights. Some food for thought -Eric

I think we need to clarify that the entire Cosi esatablishment, New York or anywhere else, prides itself on having a "fuck you" attitude. They seem to think that people enjoy being treated badly. -Eric

I lived in Denver for two years and they had the nicest darn servers you'd ever want to meet -- and every dinner was amateur hour (except in the formal dining room of the Brown Palace Hotel). They didn't know the food, they could bring the appetizers out on time and I actually had a bartender come out from behind the bar and put his arm around me, to console me when he had to announce that the entree I'd ordered was sold out. Ick. But, you have to admit, New Yorkers are, at least, brusque on a regular basis. Maybe out-of-towners see New Yorkers as "brusque", but to New Yorkers - me, at least - I think this is respect. I don't want a waiter to tell me about his or her personal life, I don't need to be consoled when my entree is sold out, I don't appreciate a silly ear-to-ear grin from my server like he/she is honored to serve me. I do need a waiter who comes over answers questions, makes sugesstions -if prompted- brings the food when it's ready, and comes over once to check on how the meal is going. On a related notes a couple of pet peeves: 1) Don't stick the dessert menu in my face, ask me if I want any - I almost never do, and 2) after the initial pouring, let me pour my own fucking wine refills (this one is really my father's pet peeve, but I am beginning to appreciate it). -Eric

Back to fish - I have a NYTimes recipe from a year or so back that I love. Take a Snapper or Sea Bass (thin skinned fish) and slash some holes on both sides. Fill it with an evoo-garlic and chile pepper paste (or whatever paste you want). Place it on a bed on fennel fronds, cover with more fronds, tie up and stick on grill. No sticking nice flavor. PM me if you want more details. -Eric