RECORD

[dodge621]

I am aware of what goes on at egullet...like most on line chat it is very

testy, nasty, and vitriolic for its own sake. They write to please each

other, which is non stop put down a la television sit-com. Do u think most

people really pay attention to these folks. Thoughtfulness --in the sense of

well-reasoned argument --is not their long suit. They have their facts wrong

almost all the time, and do not use their names. So my worst enemy could be writing the critiques...how would i know, and why bother to respond. The

truth is we are widely respected, and should be. We have one of the best

policies on restaurant reviewing in the nation. Is their, and your quibble

with the editing or the knowledge...because i will put our reviewers up

against anyone...

[dodge621]

above was the response I got from Ms. Mack

[201]

As I see it, Nick Gatti uses his name with great pride when he makes his frequent comments on the Record's reviews. If ngatti is too cryptic, just check out the signature line. Who has "their facts wrong almost all of the time"???

Personally, I would never have read any of the Record's restaurant reviews if they weren't linked from eGullet. As it stands, the ones I've read haven't made me seek out the Record as a source of finding interesting places to eat... but then again, I've got eGullet for that. I do think it's interesting how vitriolic she is in her defense of the Record's restaurant reviews, so thanks for sharing.

edit: typo

[Rail Paul]

FWIW, I don't think we're nasty most of the time.

The letter sounds like a stream of consciousness piece. What did you ask Ms Mack to provoke this vituperative flow? The writer obviously sounds very pissed.

I'm guessing the idea that Nick and I hatched about shadow reviews (reviewing the reviewers and the advertising) probably drove them off the walls. The various corroborating comments probably didn't help much.

Marge Perry's response on the thread was well reasoned, thoughtful, and very much on point. If Pat Mack had simply quoted that, she'd come across like Winston Churchill.

It's interesting that David Corcoran posted here to discuss the opinions on Karla Cook's review of Stage Left in the NY Times. I think that speaks very well of David and of Marge, and the confidence they have in their writing and research.

Perhaps someday Pat Mack will feel sufficiently confident in the quality of her writing and reviewing to discuss it online. That might be an enriching experience for all of us...

[Jason Perlow]

I am aware of what goes on at egullet...like most on line chat it is very

testy, nasty, and vitriolic for its own sake. They write to please each

other, which is non stop put down a la television sit-com. Do u think most

people really pay attention to these folks. Thoughtfulness --in the sense of

well-reasoned argument --is not their long suit. They have their facts wrong

almost all the time, and do not use their names. So my worst enemy could be writing the critiques...how would i know, and why bother to respond. The

truth is we are widely respected, and should be. We have one of the best

policies on restaurant reviewing in the nation. Is their, and your quibble

with the editing or the knowledge...because i will put our reviewers up

against anyone...

Quite obviously, she has some issues with communication.

Any food journalist worth their salt will tell you this is a load of hogwash.

[ngatti]

Okay dodge, what did you say??? How did you provoke this response??

I've met Pat Mack and this seems out of charactor.

I question the ethics of posting excerpts from personal corespondence without the writers permission. I'm sure Pat Mack was replying to you alone and had no idea that her remarks were going to be emblazoned across a public forum.

As you say it is an excerpt. I'd like to see the context. Including whatever initilialy prompted the response. But ask her first, before you post.

Nick

[Ron Johnson]

Does South Park count as a sit-com? If so, I am not offended by Ms. Mack, and she is spot on about the testes.

Oh, that was testy, nevermind.

[chopjwu12]

i think we all can be a bunch of assholes sometimes but not all the time. I agree and disagree with some of the things she said. But i do have to disagree with nick when he sais that she probably didn't know the reply would be posted on egullet. The fact that she said what she said would lead one to believe she knew it would be posted. But all in all who really cares. She vented some anger and good for her. She should have posted it herself and it would have made it alot better.

On a side note Rail Paul was that David Corcorans defence of Karla Cooks on the reviel of the frog and the peach or stage left. Because i would have liked to see cook reply to that not david.

[tommy]

But i do have to disagree with nick when he sais that she probably didn't know the reply would be posted on egullet. The fact that she said what she said would lead one to believe she knew it would be posted. But all in all who really cares.

it's in bad form to make private correspondence public without the consent of the writer. this, is not debatable. second guessing her motives or what she did or did not know is moot.

that said, i have no idea if she was asked or not.

[dodge621]

Nick, I sent her an email which quoted what was said on last weeks reviews but I did remove all expletives.

The response she sent me was not an excerpt. it was her fill response.

I will be happy to forward the email to you in private message

[Okay dodge, what did you say??? How did you provoke this response??

I've met Pat Mack and this seems out of charactor.

I question the ethics of posting excerpts from personal corespondence without the writers permission. I'm sure Pat Mack was replying to you alone and had no idea that her remarks were going to embazoned across a public forum.

As you say it is an excerpt. I'd like to see the context. Including whatever initilialy prompted the response. But ask her first, before you post.

Nick ]

[jhlurie]

I am aware of what goes on at egullet...like most on line chat it is very

testy, nasty, and vitriolic for its own sake. They write to please each

other, which is non stop put down a la television sit-com. Do u think most

people really pay attention to these folks. Thoughtfulness --in the sense of

well-reasoned argument --is not their long suit. They have their facts wrong

almost all the time, and do not use their names. So my worst enemy could be writing the critiques...how would i know, and why bother to respond. The

truth is we are widely respected, and should be. We have one of the best

policies on restaurant reviewing in the nation. Is their, and your quibble

with the editing or the knowledge...because i will put our reviewers up

against anyone...

Assuming this is on the level (I'm sorry Dodge, since I don't know you in real life I need that disclaimer--its nothing personal), it is indeed proof that she doesn't read eGullet (at least very closely).

eGullet--as a community--virtually NEVER lets people post simply to please themselves or each other. Well, at least not on serious issues (issues about "Pie" or "Steak" or "tommy's Kitties" are something else entirely).

The vitriol part may occasionally be true, but we don't automatically take comments from posters (anonymous or otherwise) as inherent gospel--your post included. We debate things and analyze them. Take a look at the debates over the NY Times reviewing process--its pretty clear that we don't let comments stand without some debate. Posting something negative is NOT automatically a 'dis from the entire community, because we've got enough brains to argue over it.

Their are constant "reality checks" when someone says something which makes no sense, and innaccurate facts are often addressed by other posters. With civility, we hope.

This is also a case of putting us all in a single container--never a good idea. A dialogue between one or two people--who may have been feeding off each other in the way described so inelegantly in that response--is typified as the default behavior for a community of several thousand people. Great. Now I no longer feel special!

[dodge621]

[Okay dodge, what did you say??? ]

by quoting what has been said about the last review (AND adding absoulutely nothing else), which was largely your critique.

According to the record it states if one has a comment or question on the dining reviews email mack@northjersey.com. My rationale for doing this is to hope the Record area finds a way to improve its dining coverage.

To merely critique the Record here and not potentially have the Record know about the complaints is a lost cause. I had hoped the Record might take some steps to rectify the problems that exist in its coverage but apparently Ms. Mack feels the coverage is superb.

[tommy]

but what else did you add? obviously you included more than just a quote to provoke the response that is in the first post of this thread. i think that's what's being asked. either that or she recognizes your name as being from egullet.

[dodge621]

[but what else did you add?]

you are right

- the 1st email I sent Ms. Mack was an exact copy of last weeks critiques on egullet.

the 2nd email I sent Ms. Mack said this

10/14/02 1:09:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time

To: Mack@northjersey.com

your Paper's coverage of dining is widely being ridiculed in

egullet.com

I hope you will make improvements as the public atleast egullet.com is really mocking your paper's reviews.

[dodge621]

here was the 1st email sent by me to Ms Mack (i only edited out curse words)

Subj: REVIEWS HERE IS THE CRITIQUE -

Date: 10/12/02 6:41:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time

To: mack@northjersey.com

The Maine crab cake appetizer ($12) was *probably* the best dish sampled at our weekday dinner

A special lamb starter ($12) consisted of a whole loin, cooked *slightly* beyond the rare requested

Service seemed a *little* lackadaisical.

In a special snapper entrée ($28), the fish was *slightly* overcooked.

Pecan-crusted chicken breast, a signature dish created by chef-owner Lee Ganbarg ...., was also *slightly* overcooked.

The dining experience - service and food preparation issues aside - is quite pleasant.

The shrimp, which *were* slightly chewy...

apparently she had bad service, mediorce food and a hefty bill at mom's house quite often.

[tommy]

this, to me, is an example of how unfair forwarding a thread (or worse yet *parts* of a thread) can be.

my comment, which i see was included, was meant tongue-in-cheek, playing off of nick's post. in this regard, her comment of "they write to please each other" is right on. my comment was not a critique of her review in the least. in fact, i even said that she "described my experience as well," which, if included, would have been an indication to her that i actually had no problem with her review.

[dodge621]

every week there is a critique of the Record reviews. What is the purpose at this point? is it just to ultimately try to hope the paper can be improve more likely there are other motives at play?

[tommy]

every week there is a critique of the Record reviews.  What is the purpose at this point? is it just to ultimately try to hope the paper can be improve  more likely there are other motives at play?

you've missed my point.

sending quotes out of context does nothing for your cause.

continue as you sit fit, however. it's clear that you've already lost mrs. mack's attention. one down, several more to go.

[dodge621]

[you've missed my point.]

your point was figured out many months ago. we have gone through this already many times

[tommy]

[you've missed my point.]

your point was figured out many months ago.  we have gone through this already many times

you're a gem. don't ever change.

[Rosie]

The e-mail note from Pat Mack was posted without her permission and knowledge. After speaking to her she has consented to allow her posting to remain. I would like to remind everyone that private e-mails and/or quotes should not be posted without permission from the writer. Thank you for your cooperation. Rosie

[ngatti]

this, to me, is an example of how unfair forwarding a thread (or worse yet *parts* of a thread) can be.  

my comment, which i see was included, was meant tongue-in-cheek, playing off of nick's post.  in this regard, her comment of "they write to please each other" is right on.  my comment was not a critique of her review in the least.  in fact, i even said that she "described my experience as well," which, if included, would have been an indication to her that i actually had no problem with her review.

Agreed.

My comments were specific critical examples of repetitive passive writing. Rather than pound the site with vitriolic unnecessary and unwarranted ad hominem attacks I merely posted specific examples of what I found lacking in the writing of the review. I posted them with no further comment. They stand or fall on their own. Members can comment or ignore. My intention was criticsm of the writing, *not* mockery of any individual (I don't know them).

More later, I'm busy

Nick

[Fat Guy]

I've met Pat and she's a terrific lady. Her comments are unfortunate and I think the reason she made them is that her familiarity with eGullet stems primarily from needling e-mails and some comments the context of which a casual observer couldn't possibly be expected to understand. The e-mail medium encourages quick responses. A journalist knows on one level that private correspondence may be publicized, but usually the expectation is that it won't be. Though neither illegal nor unethical, it is certainly poor form and poor etiquette to reproduce private correspondence without permission. I hope the site can someday earn her respect even after this unfortunate incident.

[dodge621]

[i would like to remind everyone that private e-mails and/or quotes should not be posted without permission from the writer. ]

point taken.

yet Ms. Mack sends these comments is also in bad taste as well. If she does not want to be quoted perhaps she should not write such things via email.

[My intention was criticsm of the writing, *not* mockery of any individual (I don't know them).]

but you had mentioned previously you were unhappy with their review of your restaurant

[ngatti]

[My intention was criticsm of the writing, *not* mockery of any individual (I don't know them).]

but you had mentioned previously you were unhappy with their review of your restaurant

This is what I wrote dodge. I detect puzzlement, but no unhappiness

Fair enough.  ngatti = Nicholas Gatti, Executive Chef at the Alpine Country Club and Restaurant Coordinator for 'Table to Table', Bergen County's food rescue program. Formerly Chef at The Bacari Grill in Washington Township.  Recipient of three very glowing stars from 'The Record' in 1993 (and still trying to figure out Mary Amoroso's culinary chops vis a vis that review).  I've also been reviewed by Anne Semmes who was not nearly as glowing (only a 'good') but was spot on with her criticism.  I've been a scrupulous reader of 'The Record's' reviews since Mark Howat (I've met him twice).  I know John Foy through my past work as Restaurant Coordinator for North Jersey's 'Share Our Strength' and I've met Pat Mack on more than one occasion.

Nick