"Chef" -- Who is? Who ain't?

[Peter B Wolf]

Are we at a point where we might say that whomever chooses to call themselves a chef is a chef?

And if you disagree with the above, please explain the actual effects that would be had from this.

Don't quite agree.

Reason: The term "Chef" (as explained by Bux, and I agree) has entered the vocabulary of 'John Doe' during the late fifties and early sixties, as perceived being the doyen of the place (restaurant) where 'John' took 'Jane' on Sunday to 'dine'.

Then, later 'John' started taking 'Jane' to the McDs and other places where 'food' was served. And whoever cooked it was the "Chef". Now that's all we got, no more 'cooks'. Both, John and Jane had no idea where the word came from, what it meant in culinary terms (or other - not only), but knowing that the "chef" had to be good, since the sprig of Parsley as garnish, or the frozen dinner rolls were served 'hot', all gave them pleasure. So, why not give the "Chef" credit.

The penetration of the word "Chef" into our daily parlance aspired just like "Shrimp Scampi" and "Coquilles Saint Jacques" did.

I truly respect Bux's and Steve Klc's comments and explanations, especially as both of them are well equipped to write eloquently and understandable.

[inventolux]

invento, where did you obtain that figure?

The soul of a chef book.

[Bux]

On the other hand it's not a protected term and we're all free to use it as we may if we can't agree on a common meaning.

Of course that leads to the uselessness of language to communicate.

[Jinmyo]

invento, where did you obtain that figure?

The soul of a chef book.

Okay.

/I wonder who has my copy now...

[MatthewB]

The distinction here is that whoever chooses to call themselves a chef, may call themselves a chef, but that calling yourself a chef doesn't make you a chef.

Word.

[slkinsey]

So if the local TV channel wants to dress some idiot up in a white hat and jacket, have him give cooking tips for the sponsor's products and call him chef, they can and we may refer to him by his TV name, but he's not a chef.

At long last I think we have a definitive answer here: it's the silly-looking hat! Put one on, and you're a chef.

[Bux]

Where were we?

Answer my question.

Im not sure I understand the question.

Im not sure I'll understand the answer anyway. I'm relying on Jinmyo to explain it to me.

[Bux]

So if the local TV channel wants to dress some idiot up in a white hat and jacket, have him give cooking tips for the sponsor's products and call him chef, they can and we may refer to him by his TV name, but he's not a chef.

At long last I think we have a definitive answer here: it's the silly-looking hat! Put one on, and you're a chef.

I believe it's the shoes. As I've heard it expressed, "If he had the balls to fill a chef's shoes, he'd be a muff magnet."

[slkinsey]

So if the local TV channel wants to dress some idiot up in a white hat and jacket, have him give cooking tips for the sponsor's products and call him chef, they can and we may refer to him by his TV name, but he's not a chef.

At long last I think we have a definitive answer here: it's the silly-looking hat! Put one on, and you're a chef.

I believe it's the shoes. As I've heard it expressed, "If he had the balls to fill a chef's shoes, he'd be a muff magnet."

I believe anyone with balls big enough to fill a pair of shoes has an entirely different career waiting for him...

[MatthewB]

Not sure about the big balls thing.

But would a magic stick suffice?

[slkinsey]

Not sure about the big balls thing.

Maybe we're looking at this wrong and it's a small shoes thing...

[malachi]

Perhaps a simple answer?

No... calling yourself "Chef" does not make you a Chef -- but if those who work for you call you "Chef" you are, in fact, a Chef.

Shrug -- might work for me. Inclusive, implies respect and skill as well as management and responsibility. What do y'all think? Too simple?

[MatthewB]

Perhaps a simple answer?

No... calling yourself "Chef" does not make you a Chef -- but if those who work for you call you "Chef" you are, in fact, a Chef.

Shrug -- might work for me. Inclusive, implies respect and skill as well as management and responsibility. What do y'all think? Too simple?

Too simple. No. More like Ockham's razor.

[inventolux]

Perhaps a simple answer?

No... calling yourself "Chef" does not make you a Chef -- but if those who work for you call you "Chef" you are, in fact, a Chef.

Shrug -- might work for me. Inclusive, implies respect and skill as well as management and responsibility. What do y'all think? Too simple?

Too simple. No. More like Ockham's razor.

Ockhams razor?

[MatthewB]

Perhaps a simple answer?

No... calling yourself "Chef" does not make you a Chef -- but if those who work for you call you "Chef" you are, in fact, a Chef.

Shrug -- might work for me. Inclusive, implies respect and skill as well as management and responsibility. What do y'all think? Too simple?

Too simple. No. More like Ockham's razor.

Ockhams razor?

Yup. "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.'' ("Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.'')

The common understanding is "keep it simple."

[malachi]

And usually expanded (when discussing possible options) to mean "the simplest explanation is most often the correct one."

[inventolux]

And usually expanded (when discussing possible options) to mean "the simplest explanation is most often the correct one."

The young grasshopper concurs.

[hollywood]

So if the local TV channel wants to dress some idiot up in a white hat and jacket, have him give cooking tips for the sponsor's products and call him chef, they can and we may refer to him by his TV name, but he's not a chef.

At long last I think we have a definitive answer here: it's the silly-looking hat! Put one on, and you're a chef.

Are you referring to the asshat?

[MatthewB]

Are you referring to the asshat?

Well . . .

I am an asshat.

I am a muff magnet.

I am *not* a chef.

[bottomlesspit]

So if the local TV channel wants to dress some idiot up in a white hat and jacket, have him give cooking tips for the sponsor's products and call him chef, they can and we may refer to him by his TV name, but he's not a chef.

At long last I think we have a definitive answer here: it's the silly-looking hat! Put one on, and you're a chef.

I believe it's the shoes. As I've heard it expressed, "If he had the balls to fill a chef's shoes, he'd be a muff magnet."

I believe anyone with balls big enough to fill a pair of shoes has an entirely different career waiting for him...

I think part of the balls that were supposed to be in the shoes worked their way up to Bobby Flay's chest, thus giving him those little man titties you always see poking out of his Merino wool sweaters.

(Sorry. Was that off topic? What the hell was the topic, anyway?)

[alanamoana]

how can you say that he paid his dues? isn't his family very wealthy and that's how he could afford ct in the first place? i guess being behind the stoves all day counts, but some great chefs took a lot longer to open their first eponymous restaurants because they didn't have daddy financing the venture.

but i could be wrong.

[tommy]

how can you say that he paid his dues? isn't his family very wealthy and that's how he could afford ct in the first place? i guess being behind the stoves all day counts, but some great chefs took a lot longer to open their first eponymous restaurants because they didn't have daddy financing the venture.

but i could be wrong.

does it really matter who backs the chef? someone has got to. very few people open a restaurant with cash.

[Mayhaw Man]

What about Chef Tony? THe guy who sells the knives on infomercials. If this guy can call himself a chef, I say anybody can.

[tommy]

What about Chef Tony? THe guy who sells the knives on infomercials. If this guy can call himself a chef, I say anybody can.

he's got some decent knife skills.

[Mayhaw Man]

What about Chef Tony? THe guy who sells the knives on infomercials. If this guy can call himself a chef, I say anybody can.  

he's got some decent knife skills.

I love that guy.