jaybee

Among my "crew" we have a simple statement that says it all about the food in a restaurant: "the taste is there." If it is, the place is good. If it isn't, it ain't. Then factor in noise, location, service and price and you have the "peripherals" that will affect how often I would go there if the "taste was there." For example, Jean Luc, in my neighborhood, serves some very tasty dishes. But the place is so painfully noisy that I will only go there for an early dinner (5:30-6 p.m.) when fewer people are there. Occasionally, one finds places that serve a particular dish that is killer, and I would go there for that dish, and that dish only. (If I found a restaurant that made killer veal parmigian, I would add it to my list).

Brian, Please note that the discussion of the USC $20.02 lunches begins on page two of the thread cited by Cabby, around June 24th. It is preceeded by a page and a half, including many short posts that represent John Whiting's reference:

The word is meaningless if not preceded by an adjective: "refined" palate, "educated" palate, "sensitive" palate etc. There are two aspects to "palate"--the ability to perceive specific tastes and the ability to identify specific tastes. Someone with a "refined" or "sensitive" palate can perceive a specific taste with very small quantities of the item. This ability may be based in a person's physiology, or come from having taught themselves to pay careful attention to detail in taste. Someone with an "educated" palate can not only perceive trace amounts of an item in food, but can identify it. This ability comes with experience and training. It is often said that some people's palates are more tuned to certain tastes than others. Often these are tastes the person doesn't like. My brother-in-law, for example, can taste cilantro a mile away. He hates the stuff. Yet he'll pour so much salt on his food, that I think his salt-palate is retarded. As to the evaluation of taste, (good or bad) that can be either subjective ("I like this a lot") or projective ("Most people will like this a lot"). For a person to project their subjective taste accurately, they must have a lot of experience that validates their ability. To do so without such experience makes them egotistical or insufferable.

Steve, your experience, as described, is 180 degrees from the $20.02 lunch I had with a group of EGers recently. The food was disappointing from top to bottom, which, for me was a double disappointment since I have always regarded USC as among my favorites. Perhaps the promotional lunch menu was given short shrift, but that's not what I would have expected from them. I'm glad of your good meal, since I don't want to leave USC with such a not so good meal as my last there. I'll give it another shot.

I would be remiss if I did not reveal that Suvir apolgized to me for any hurt he may have caused by his words in a private message upon his return to the forum. I accepted his apology in the spirit in which it was offered and have no reason to doubt his sincerity. Nor do I wish to contribute any further to this discussion, (until given further irresistable provocation )

Earlier I wrote that I would post no more on this thread, but it seems my convictions are not as strong as my emotions. To borrow Tommy's declaration, I am writing for myself here when I say that, aside from one or two trolls who put me in their sights, I have not felt personally affronted by any posts that either disagreed with mine or took issue with me except for some of John's. I admire his skill as a writer, and his ability to turn a phrase to express a point differently than others have done. His bistro reviews are very well done and informative. We shared private emails on several subjects which I enjoyed doing. I expect he would be an enjoyable dinner companion. That said, I find the tone and expression of some of his retorts to be demeaning to the individual he is addressing. Not just to their point or view, which is fair game, but to their values or basic philosophy. His so-called facetious comment about well-heeled punters and conspicuous consumption, and his put down of people who are affluent, or care to be, bespeaks a contempt for people whose values and desires differ from his in ways that are important to him. That contempt fairly oozes through his satire and sardony. I've read a fair amount of what has been posted on eGullet since joining last January. And I have not read or felt contempt from any other posters. If someone wishes to tell me I can't tell a good wine from a great one, or that my taste in restaurants is woeful or demonstrates ignorance, that's goose for the gander. If they want to argue me to tears on why French haut cuisine is as good as cuisine can get, that's OK. But if someone makes me feel that they have contempt for me or what I believe, that is not OK by a long shot. If this is not a fair reading of John's feelings or intent, I apologize to him. And I mean that. But it is a gut feeling I have, and I won't apologize for that.

I recall having a super piece of meat at Gene and Georgetti's some years ago. I also had a great steak there later that evening.

I prefer a really good gorgonzola with an old burgundy to either of these.

I love this place most when: I learn something. I laugh at Wilfrid's posts. I chuckle lewdly at Tommy's posts. I read about a meal I haven't had, in a place to which I probably won't go. I post something either funny or informative and get nice compliments. I get to know new people, some of whom might even become friends of mine. All the rest is just bullshit and detracts from the above. So I hereby withdraw from all verbal sparring unless it relates to a veal chop or an apple tart.

Oh, now it's the old PM story. I recall you didn't have much time for this tactic when Steve P used it to defend himself.

Lizziee, you ask very good questions. Since John so ungraciously invited the "kangaroo court" to talk amongst ourselves, I suggest the following thesis. John eschews material gain for his work. However, the admiration of his peers for his writing is another form of currency. The peer group he is writing for, in his judgment, would pay good coin for a piece that sticks the picador's lance in the rich, indulgent, conspicuous American gourmand. Hence, the "facetious" poke at the high rolling punters. Had he used his considerable writing talent to compose a piece about the extraordinary community that has developed here, with many people making new friends, in person and over the web; about the spirited passion and heat with which issues are discussed and taken to remarkable lengths and sometimes very funny sidebars; about the affection I sense and feel for and from many members from distant places whom I would never have met in the normal turn of events; about the sharing of information and desire to help on another with tirvial and not so trivial problems...well, had he written about that, it would have been a dull article and he would not have been paid much "coin" by the audience for whom it was written. So you see, aggrandisement comes in many forms, not all of it is currency.

Jinmyo speaks the truth. Why, John, are you so chagrined that the ax is two-bladed. You dish it out with sharp wit and well chosen words. But your retreat is far less graceful.

No answer to my question?

Calvin Trillin said that the words he dreaded most from his wife were "I'm tired. Let's just eat in the hotel." My experiences in Germany with hotel restaurants were quite good. I have no experience with any in France, unless you consider Le Crayieres in Reims or La Cotes St Jaques in Joigny to be hotel restaurants. Are there any that are worth their salt in Paris, or for that matter, all of France?

John, a point of enlightenment please. Is it the fact that these well-heeled punters eat in these expensive restaurants that you find so odious, or that they write about their dining experiences on eGullet? or both? If it is the latter, I'm sure that this cadre could be discouraged from doing so quite easily without any loss of self-esteem. I can assure you that my enjoyment of eating the food of Troisgros, Lammelois, Gagnaire, Savoy, Pic, Baumaniere, Robuchon et.al would not be diminished one whit if my dinners were totally inconspicuous.

Such events are more common that people know, since the Mexican government, which thrives on tourism and the revenues of snowbirds doesn't encourage publicity. Just some other events to flavor the place: The "sheriff" of this quaint fishing village had, during our tenure, shot an offensive drunk to death in the town square. The nearby bank, in a scene reminiscent of Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid, was held up at gunpoint in broad daylight by three banditos who seemed to know that the local workers were bringing their cash pay in for deposit. An "entrepreneur" built a toll booth acriss the highway leading oout of Puerto Vallarta to the mountains, and prospered on its take for ten years before the Mexican president on a visit inquired as to whose toll booth it was. Seeing he was not getting his cut, he ordered it torn down. We were encouraged to come down with piles of money for counter-bribing, and/or our own, better-armed, gunmen. Ah, sunny Mejico. Pass the margarita please.

Bravo, John. That's a better dance step than your banjo shuffle.

Well written and droll, where called for. Do you include yourself in that cadre that posts about things other than substantial food-centered threads? What culinary contributions were made by Martin Luther? Oh, worms; right, the food of the simple folk.

This is not a case of squatters rights. This was a legally occupied house. Gunman stole it. It was in a village called La Peñita de Jaltimba, just north of Puerto Vallarta. The home/villa was lived in for over twenty-five years by my in-laws 6 months of every year, and they were well know citizens of the town. The villa would be worth nearly $1 million on the market. I add that it was occupied at the time.

Jaymes, I wasn't kidding about having our house stolen. Armed people took it over and forced out the people we had watching it, forged papers to show they had purchased the lease on the land, and bribed local judges to support their case. After spending $10,000 in "legal fees" we gave up.

Ardbeg or Lag. Good sauterne (a recent discovery). Seltzer

So you are suggesting that the rise in my BPto dangerous levels immediately following ingestion of great quantities of salt is caused by .....what?

Popeye's Wimpy was a hamburger freak. If you like sausages and have a meal open in Strasbourg, try Maison Kammerzeller. The Choucroute Royale is not to be missed, if, as I say, you like sausages...and good beer. It is right next tothe Cathedral.

Lizziee, That just shows that Mr. Lizziee is not at all like the famer.

FG, this issue reminds me of the story of the farmer who got married after a long bachelorhood. As the wagon took them from the wedding party, their horse stumbled. The farmer said loudly, "That's one." A little further down the road, the horse tripped again. The farmer said, "That's two." His wife sat perplexed. When the horse stumbled a third time, the farmer said "That's three," drew his gun and shot the horse. The wife screamed in horror and began to berate him. When she paused for breath, the farmer said "That's one." Maybe Cabby is saying "That's one."