High Standards

[Steve Plotnicki]

which raises the question, "Why do they responding?"

Because ultimately what the responses are about is denying the use of the word "better" etc. All of these people have a vested interest in denying the use for some reason that they haven't explained. I thought it was reasonable to say that Picasso is a better painter then child in kindergarten. But they will even begrudge that comparison in order to deny use of the word.

[tommy]

...which raises the question, "Why do they responding?"

because peoples' impression that plotz is elitist, condescending, and full of himself really gets to them? i, however, know that their impressions are wrong, as i have a lot of experience in dealing with this particular subject.

additionally, although we'd like to think it's always plotz and the same 2 people going back-and-forth, it really seems to be plotz going back-and-forth with a nonstop rotation of any number of people. hence his nickname, the "Energizer Dummie."

[Tonyfinch]

..which raises the question, "Why do they responding?"

'Cos it's fun. And Steve yes you did enjoy New Tayyab and you were fun to dine with. So maybe Jaybee's NOT talking about you after all.

[jaybee]

Ah that's not what I heard (and what I heard might have been wong.) I had heard it came out a discussion you had at DiFara's about a meal we had together at a certain NYC restaurant. But even if that is incorrect, the meal I am referring too is a good example for what we are discussing. You liked it more then we did. Why?

Yes, it was wong. The Babbo discussion, which I had with Toby at DiFara's was prompted by the dinner I had with my friends, but I brought it up with Toby because she was at the Babbo dinner, so it is related. The question was also prompted by our discussion of how good the pizza was at DiFara's and how it measured up with other "bests" we'd eaten.

It is true that I did enjoy the Babbo meal more than you, or at least I talked more about what I liked about the meal while you talked more about what you didn't like. That is another aspect of hypercriticism that interests me. I find some people prone to talk almost entirely about what they don't like. Reminds me of Schroeder in Peanuts, who walks around with a dark cloud over his head. Boo to that!

[Jinmyo]

...which raises the question, "Why do they responding?"

because peoples' impression that plotz is elitist, condescending, and full of himself really gets to them? i, however, know that their impressions are wrong, as i have a lot of experience in dealing with this particular subject.

Steve is a good hugger, I hear.

[jaybee]

You liked it more then we did. Why?

The starter salad I had with lambs tongue was delicious. It's dressing has always been to my liking. The beef cheeks ravioli with truffle sauce were delicious. Every time I've eaten them at Babbo, I've enjoyed them. The giant prawns were mealy and not very tasty. The lamb chops were not hot enough, but the meat was good quality, the degree of doneness was right, and the seasoning was tasty. The wine you chose was very good and went very well with the food. The desserts were so so, but not unpleasant. The people at the table were interesting and fun to be with. I sat next to Toby, which is always a delight.

But now I reread your perspective, I guess I am wrong. If I knew more or had more experience with that kind of meal, on balance, I would have had a much less enjoyable time.

[jaybee]

..which raises the question, "Why do they responding?"

'Cos it's fun. And Steve yes you did enjoy New Tayyab and you were fun to dine with. So maybe Jaybee's NOT talking about you after all.

I am not talking about Steve. Dining with Steve is fun. You can count on him to sniff out what's good and order it. Except for the time he had us all eat fondue at Artisinal. But I took that as an abberation, not a measure of his standards.

[Steve Plotnicki]

But now I reread your perspective, I guess I am wrong. If I knew more or had more experience with that kind of meal, on balance, I would have had a much less enjoyable time

You mean "could have had." You might have enjoyed it for other reasons we didn't notice and you could have made the convincing argument.

[jaybee]

But now I reread your perspective, I guess I am wrong. If I knew more or had more experience with that kind of meal, on balance, I would have had a much less enjoyable time

You mean "could have had." You might have enjoyed it for other reasons we didn't notice and you could have made the convincing argument.

Are you choossing to ignore what I said were the reasons I (seemingly) enjoyed it more than you. Except for the lamb chops we ate different things, you know. Or is it your opinion that I am wrong in having enjoyed the things I ate more than you enjoyed the things you ate?

[tommy]

Steve is a good hugger, I hear.

as i probably haven't hugged enough and in enough places to form an educated opinion on this matter, i'd feel uncomfortable agreeing.

[Steve Plotnicki]

We ate different things? I thought we had the chef's tasting menu and they served the same food for the table save for dishes with wheat in them?

[hollywood]

There's the whistle and the game is over. Steve has won the annual Super Bowl of Cuisine. Steve, any comment?

"I knew I would win. It was a team effort. The i for the name and the i for the ism played together as one unit. They said my i formation was outmoded but I proved them wrong. Not to take anything away from them, they played hard, but they repeatedly gave up the ball. I always had the ball. I had no turnovers. When they got into subjectivity, they repeatedly turned the ball over. I knew I could always take the ball and go home. They didn't. They made some points, but it was on insignificant things like game, oysters and black licorice. I was prepared to give them those things. Those are meaningless. My rigorous training on this site paid off. I just ran the same plays over and over and stuffed the ball down their throat. In the few instances when they got in the red zone, I shifted my defenses, changed the rules and played on. They didn't have a prayer. It was a great day for me and for high end cuisine. Can't wait till next year--and I won't."

[Jinmyo]

eXtreme eGullet.

[Jaymes]

Steve is a good hugger, I hear.

as i probably haven't hugged enough and in enough places to form an educated opinion on this matter, i'd feel uncomfortable agreeing.

Perhaps we should have a "Hug-Off" or a "Hugathon."

But first, I believe we should discuss at some length what differentiates a "great" hug from one that is "bad" or merely "damn adequate."

Should there be full-body pressure? Or rumps simultaneously pooched-out in chaste avoidance of any impropriety? Slaps upon backs? Bottoms? Air kisses included?

Does one's ability to hug "better" ensure one's increased enjoyment of the hug, or is it merely the hugger and the huggee that is paramount.

I, for one, would much rather receive a mediocre hug from someone such as, say, Jaybee or you, Tommy (even with your admitted lack of experience in such matters) than the most fabulous of hugs from a less-delightful source.

(And, by the way, I have received countless PMs from other reliable hug experts that agree with me, but are too shy and intimidated to say so.)

Edited January 27, 2003 by Jaymes (log)

[Wilfrid]

When am I supposed to find the time to read this thread? Looks so interesting, too.

Fresh from Jaybee's original post, let me throw in the comment that one inconvenience of my own steadily raised culinary expectations is that I now frequently reject food which I would once have been content to consume just as fuel. I really won't eat garbage any more, unless I'm about to faint. And I speak as someone who has rejected several airplane meals and a ground-based attempt at fried chicken in just the last few days.

Since I am probably going to agree with Steve about the concept of one thing being "better" than another - a concept regularly deployed in their daily lives by all those who express scepticism about it here - let me turn to one an old bugbear:

"while I am not an opera fan, I can tell you that the technique on display at the opera wipes Bob Dylan off the table. That isn't a matter of opinion, that is a fact "

What you still don't get, Steve, is that this fact is not indicative of a failing on the part of Dylan. Not unless you think his performances would be better if they incorporated many operatic techniques. This is such an important point. Dylan wouldn't be better as Dylan if he was more operatic. The Ramones could not have improved their albums by learning from Mozart. And - back to food - not every dish in the culinary canon is improved by complicated elaboration. If it was, you'd have loved eating at the Forum of the Twelve Caesars (maybe you did?).

[Wilfrid]

I, for one, would much rather receive a mediocre hug from someone such as, say, Jaybee or you, Tommy (even with your admitted lack of experience in such matters)    Than the most fabulous of hugs from a less-delightful source.

I've been hugged by Tommy. It's overrated.

[StephenT]

Would Einstein had been better off if he had appreciation and interest for less complex theories?

Funnily enough, one of the best things about the Special Theory of Relativity is its simplicity and elegance.

[Wilfrid]

I salute your erudition, Steve. Simplicity is a theory's hallmark of excellence in many disciplines.

Formal complexity does not correlate with excellence either in thinking or in cooking.

[Steve Plotnicki]

What you still don't get, Steve, is that this fact is not indicative of a failing on the part of Dylan. Not unless you think his performances would be better if they incorporated many operatic techniques. This is such an important point. Dylan wouldn't be better as Dylan if he was more operatic. The Ramones could not have improved their albums by learning from Mozart. And - back to food - not every dish in the culinary canon is improved by complicated elaboration. If it was, you'd have loved eating at the Forum of the Twelve Caesars (maybe you did?).

Wilfrid - But to get to this point you have to be drawing an inference that I am not making. I am only speaking of technique. The technique you need to employ to be able to play guitar like Segovia is very complex and not everyone can do it. But anyone, and I mean anyone, can learn how to play Blowing in the Wind on a guitar in just a few hours time. Those aren't subjective statements. They are quanitfiable. But then I do make the following inference. Great art, or things that last, are built on complex and profound technique that people try to both replicate and improve on over time. So I feel safe saying that opera employs technique so profound that it has stood, and will stand, the test of time. I cannot say that about the Ramones. And in that light (the eternal acceptance of their music) indeed they might have had something to learn from Mozart. Because his techniques were eternal. You cannot make that statement (yet and you will probably never be able to) make it about the Ramones.

[hollywood]

Would Einstein had been better off if he had appreciation and interest for less complex theories?

Funnily enough, one of the best things about the Special Theory of Relativity is its simplicity and elegance.

Uh oh...are we gearing up for Even Steven?

[lxt]

But we are interested in performing extensive research to find a bargain. That's the main reason we are here.

No, the main reason we are here is to evaluate whether price properly represents the merits of food. Others would be interested in whether price corresponds with the merits of décor, for instance. A bargain or “advantaged purchase, one acquired at less than the usual cost”(Webster) represents a price that needs to be corrected and is the reverse of overpricing.

Food critics are not QA employees for the industry; their duty of care, to the extent that they have any, goes in exactly the opposite direction...

QA personnel in any industry also represent consumers, though they are working for the industry. It is their responsibility to find irregularities with the product to be corrected for the ultimate consumers’ satisfaction. Some restaurants even employ critics to provide an assessment of the restaurants’ performance undercover. However, whether the critics are directly employed by the food industry or not, their role is identical to the QA department and consequently results or should result in the improvement of the food industry as well as the consumers’ satisfaction.

But if, as you say in another post, price were "the only available system allowing us to objectively assess products", then we would have no need for the so-called "objective" assessments of other posters on this site.

But one of the elements of price is based on the “‘objective‘ assessments of other posters on this site” and people contributing to the restaurant business, that is, demand. As of today, pricing is the only system that allows us to function properly in our society in order to perform more or less equal exchange. All money represents is just another product that is supposedly of the same value as the product you are attempting to buy. In a barter economy, bread would be exchanged for milk, for instance. However, price is not a static entity, nor it is always properly assessed; therefore, mispricing is followed by a subsequent price correction, the purpose of which is to achieve a fair exchange.

[lxt]

I am using "better" in the sense of Steve Plotnicki's latest post, "reasonableness" rather than "objectivity".

Congratulations to Jonathan for surgically extracting a useful idea from the inflated verbiage of this thread. Persistence has its rewards.

What I fail to see is where in the “inflated verbiage of this thread” objectivity was opposed to reasonableness. As a matter of fact, isn’t it what objectivity (“not influenced by personal feelings, interpretation, prejudice; based on fact; unbiased” – Webster) represents: “agreeable to sound judgment and logic” - Webster? Reasonableness and objectivity are close in their definition, and therefore provide little contrast in comparison.

[jaybee]

We ate different things? I thought we had the chef's tasting menu and they served the same food for the table save for dishes with wheat in them?

If we are talking Babbo, with Toby, the Browns and Mrs. P, we all ordered off the menu, since you pissed off the waitress by asking if the kitchen would cook for us and she didn't understand you. Or are you referrrng to our last Blue Hill meal with Stella Bella, where Michael did cook for us and we got better food than the people ordering off the menu? That meal was mixed. I recall one or two dishes that were good and two that were not.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Or why some people insist that "objective" can only mean the result of a scientific formula and not the adoption of a standard based on statistical analysis? All the word reasonable does is sound less harsh because it implies room for disagreement. But you are correct to point out that the word "objective" in this instance is the same thing.

The latter. I understood that you had a conversation with someone at that meal that led to this thread being posted.

[jaybee]

I, for one, would much rather receive a mediocre hug from someone such as, say, Jaybee

Jaymsie, not to sound smug, if I can't give a first rate hug, I'd rather shrug. High quality standards, you know.