Stone

But for those who've eaten at the SF places, would these rank with Gramercy/Union Square? or JG, Bernardin? (I'm thinking the former, second tier.)

I'm curious where people think that Fifth Floor and Danko would fit in the NY restaurant scene?

Cabrales -- you've obviously used your time off well. Regarding the service of lettuce leaves with the foie, were you a little surprised that the server explained to the diner how to eat the roll "Vietnamese" style? I would have expected that almost anyone dining at FF would be experienced enough to know what the leaves were there for.

I got to the third paragraph and realized that Mamster is a fool. No dessert portion is too big. He's a fool for suggesting it. What does he want -- smaller portions? You may have realized that in the winter you can always put on more clothes. In the summer, there's only so much you can take off before you must sit and suffer. At dessert, you can always eat less food. You're not a goldfish. But when the plate of cute, little dessert-lings is empty, you can only sit and suffer.

(Can I jump in and ask a question about onion soup? I've got a friend from a small town near Lyon. One New Years Eve he made us all onion soup. He claimed that it was traditional in France to return home after a night of revelry and eat onion soup before going to bed. Well, we returned home that night to the worst onion soup I've ever had. It was little more than sliced onions, boiled in water with a little butter and salt. Very odd, considering that he's a pretty good cook otherwise. He claimed that this was authentic. ????)

And it's possible to make a meaningful statement that the food at Tabla is better than at Diwan, or vice versus. That's how this started. Plotz said that the food at Tabla is better than Diwan. Shaw said that this simply follows from his stated preference for "French" technique, and therefore was a biased comparison. Then we got off into the standards that people apply when judging food, after which others told us that we were wrong to suggest that Tabla served Indian food, which was never really the subject at hand. And here we are, somewhat back at the beginning.

Why does anyone think that rich people have good taste?

For.

Thanks, you may use it. I've made brisket a number of times without completely covering the meat in liquid and without turning it. I actually like the "dry" top, which is just as tender, but a little crisp. Usually after cutting the brisket and storing it in the gravy, I will separate the two for reheating. This also gives some crispness to the meat, which is added back to the gravy to moisten for serving.

Nobody cares? Not one single solitary person? It may be outside the context of a comparison you care to make perhaps, but certainly within many contexts. It would seem to even the most casual reader her that you are imposing a level of specificity that is outside that which most members see as categories within which comparisons may be made. Bux -- "Nobody cares" means that nobody in the discussion that Plotz, FG (I think) and I were having on this thread cares. We were having a discussion on whether Plotz, et al., fairly compared the two restaurants or whether he (they) were applying a biased standard. We were not discussing whether Tabla served Indian food, yet for some reason everyone else insists on telling us that we were and then telling us that Tabla is not serving Indian food and anyone who thinks it is is wrong. Many people may care about that issue. But that wasn't the subject matter of the earlier discussion, which has generated all this rigamarole. (At least it wasn't what I was discussing. Perhaps I shouldn't speak for the others. )

And a Godess or two.

I tried to gather stuff in one place -- here. There's also some stuff here. There's also a ton of non-eGullet information (with great instructions, pictures, recipes, etc.) -- here. There are two gods here -- Col. and =Mark. And a Godess or two.

Um, the audience that the kitchen is catering to is different, from say, an audience that an Indian restaurant is catering to -- like for example, any of the Indian palaces on East 6th Street or those in Murray Hill or in Queens, or even Diwan. What's your basis for this statement, other than your own opinion? The audience at Tabla is probably a more "upscale" crowd. But other than the obvious financial and atmospheric differences, why do you assume that the restaurants are catering to different crowds based on a desire for "Indian" food. Don't you think it's possible (probable) that all the Upper East Side, Francophile, Haut Cuisine loving people know so little about Indian food and are so scared of venturing onto 6th Street that their choice for Indian food is going to be the heavily publicized, Danny-Meyer-safe Tabla? (Remember, we're not discussing whether people are wrong for thinking that Tabla offers "real Indian food", just testing Plotz's theory/assumption/presumption that Tabla is within the Indian food market.)

Wont you end up with different texture for the pork below the milk-line?

Carnitas. Or do a pulled pork in the oven. (Fixed the link to the carnitas thread.)

I was surprised to see that in tall office buildings in LA they store a few gallons of water in every office in case an earthquake or something traps people in the building.

Perhaps, but that wasn't our discussion.

I think you're right. But for Steve's purposes, he's saying that they're in the same "market segment." Then you have two questions (or more): 1) should they be in the same segment; 2) how do they compare. You may be correct that they should not be in the same segment. But putting that aside, and accepting that right or wrong they are, the next question is how do the two compare. Steve says that within that market segment, applying the standards he thinks are applicable, Diwan doesn't compare well to Tabla. FG and I think Steve's conclusion stems from a presumption (conscious or otherwise) that "French" or "Western" cuising is superior. I think that's about all that's going on.

Anil - Yes but in the marketplace it is competing in, it is Indian. The protestations that it isn't, doesn't get anyone anywhere. And if they are incomparable, you are going to have to do a better job of explaining why then Fat Guy did because I assure you that all seven people are waiting to hear that answer. And the reason I know that is because I've been recieving special secret PM's from them. Steve has a point (although I think is repeated invocation of the "market" is usually a red herring) -- there are a number of ideas going on here, some of which involve critiquing Diwan under "Western" standards; some involve critiquing Tabla under "Indian" standards; and some just involve comparing the food at Tabla to Diwan under a purportedly neutral standard (if such a standard exists). In the latter sense, even though Tabla seems to keep saying that it's not an "Indian" restaurant, my guess is that many of the people going there think it is and although it's easy to say that they're just ignorant, that doesn't change the fact that Tabla and Diwan are two of the few examples of high-end "Indian" cuisine in the city. And I don't think Steve really meant to say that Indian food is just about parsing spices -- at least I never took that to be the foundation of his theory. We all have to cut eachother a little slack when we're not being as precise with our words as possible, making generalizations, etc.

A friend of mine was at Piperade tonight. She said it was fabulous.

Never before have I had such a good setup for Plotnickiism. Stone - No, Titanic was a perfect movie for the market of people who like those types of movies. In fact, no movie before it or after it can match its level of perfection. But of course it is not the perfect movie for the more discriminating filmgoer, i.e., a completely different market segment. I was having an interesting but rather mundane Thai dinner tonight and found myself thinking about this quote and how I might have misinterpreted Plotnickiism. I had always thought the doctrine of the "P" stood for "objectivism" (small "o" because it's completely different from Rand's freakish individualism). That is, there is an objectively correct answer to questions such as "is dish A a better expression of tuna than dish B"; "does dish xxx go better with wine A or wine B"; "is technique xyz objectively better than technique slop-dash-mash." I thought that's what "Wilfrid" was right about. But now I see that the basis of the doctrine can be seen in the statement that "Titanic was a perfect movie for the market of people who like those types of movies. In fact, no movie before it or after it can match its level of perfection. But of course it is not the perfect movie for the more discriminating filmgoer, i.e., a completely different market segment." How does this fit with objectivisim? Have you ever heard a more subjective theory in your lives, my young droogies? Doesn't this mean that Indian food is the perfect food -- for people that like Indian food? And that French haut cuisine may be the perfect food, but only for people that like French haut cuisine better than other cuisines? And that for all of us on the boards, therefore, French haut cuisine is only the "superior" cuisine because we believe that the market segment that labels it as such is "more discriminating" than those who favor other cuisines? And finally, that we only think that the French haut cuisine lovers are more discriminating because we believe them to have "better" taste based on . . . . . . what? The market? But it's the market that tells us that Titanic is the best movie of all time. To get around that obviously flawed conclusion, one must reinterpret, slice and segment the market to say that, well, the "market" may select Titanic as the best movie of all time, but there's actually a different, more discriminating market that realizes that "The Godfather" is actually the best movie of all time. (Let's admit it folks, in this instance, there is an objectively correct answer.) But once we do that, my fine droogies (yes, it was on cable a few nights ago) aren't our feet mired inextricably in the realm of the subjective? Just a thought brought on by a few too many Singha's, some excellent Penang (objectively the best curry) and one inadvertantly and unexpectedly chomped prik kee nuu.

Remember when you took that nap in the woods and woke up with a really long beard?

No, I think it means we're being loose and careless with our generalizations. As G.J. explained, this conversation started by pointing out that Diwan's food is not the typical brown spice-laden curry many Americans are used to. (Did you freak when Dylan went electric?)

I have absolutely no basis for what I'm about to write: But if Danny Meyer had opened Tabla in Union Square, with Chef Mathur serving Diwan's menu, but with Tabla's atmosphere, service, etc., I bet he'd get three stars. (O.k., I do have some basis -- Otto got 2 stars.) You lose me both with the use of the word "legitimate" (but I know what you mean) and the suggestion that anyone other than you believes that parsing spices is outdated and/or outmoded, especially since, for Western cuisines, "spice" is only first making itself known. (I should qualify this somehow because, of course, there have been spicy components in Western food forever.)

I think one needs to make many trips to really get a good idea of the quality. For example, I've only been to Ben Benson's once, and had a bad steak. While there's no excuse for serving a bad steak, I'd be wrong to conclude that it's a bad steak house.