The Man Who Doesn't Eat In Restaurants

Jinmyo · February 18, 2004

Raynickben · February 18, 2004

I thought he wouldn't eat in restaurants for sanitation fears or he is agoraphobic but the main reason it seems is he doesn't like people looking at his food. That's a whole other issue. He probably wasn't able to eat that tuna sandwich after the photographer took the picture. I feel sorry for him.

Very interesting about the wool/linen law too!

Rachel Perlow · February 18, 2004

My cousin owns a mens clothing store in Brooklyn and uses a statnes tester. After they alter suits, for those who request it, they get sent to a shatnes on Coney Island Avenue, who checks the shoulder pads and collars.

Gifted Gourmet · February 18, 2004

"Mr. Glustein's wife makes him dinner most nights."

Like there is a choice?? :blink:

Seriously, my original thoughts were about issues of kashrut ... then, upon reading the article more carefully, I realized that Mr. Glustein had other "issues" about restaurants .. makes one wonder whether he uses a public mensroom without concerns as well ... "peerers" are everywhere!.... :unsure:

slkinsey · February 18, 2004

In my opinion, he clearly has some kind of social anxiety disorder that he's learned how to function around by simply avoiding certain situations.

Gifted Gourmet · February 18, 2004

In my opinion, he clearly has some kind of social anxiety disorder that he's learned how to function around by simply avoiding certain situations.

But didn't the article say his mother and father didn't eat in restaurants either?

Maybe it is more of a "learned response" from his upbringing ... and, in his community, a number of religious people don't patronize restaurants, no matter how scrupulous the rabbinic supervision ...

but I don't discount the possibility of his having a social anxiety disorder either ...

Edited February 18, 2004 by Gifted Gourmet (log)

cakewalk · February 18, 2004

My questions aren't to Mr. Glustein, but to the NY Times. What on earth was the point of this article? Can anybody shed some light on that question? :wacko:

Also -- they went to Le Marais and Mr. Glustein, true to form, had only a ginger ale. But the reporter had a vegetarian meal. Le Marais is a steak house, no?

Gifted Gourmet · February 18, 2004

My questions aren't to Mr. Glustein, but to the NY Times. What on earth was the point of this article? Can anybody shed some light on that question?
Also -- they went to Le Marais and Mr. Glustein, true to form, had only a ginger ale. But the reporter had a vegetarian meal. Le Marais is a steak house, no?

Possibly because it is a human interest story, and a Jewish one, at that ... would explain the NYT's purpose ....

as for the interviewer's vegetarian meal? Perhaps so as not to offend Mr. Glustein should he be concerned about meat meals eaten outside his home?

cakewalk · February 18, 2004

My questions aren't to Mr. Glustein, but to the NY Times. What on earth was the point of this article? Can anybody shed some light on that question?
Also -- they went to Le Marais and Mr. Glustein, true to form, had only a ginger ale. But the reporter had a vegetarian meal. Le Marais is a steak house, no?
Possibly because it is a human interest story, and a Jewish one, at that ... would explain the NYT's purpose ....
as for the interviewer's vegetarian meal? Perhaps so as not to offend Mr. Glustein should he be concerned about meat meals eaten outside his home?

It's a glatt kosher restaurant. I don't see how the meat would offend Mr. Glustein any more than the vegetables.

There's nothing "Jewish" about the story, except for the fact that Mr. Glustein is Jewish. It's not as if his Judaism has anything to do with the reasons he doesn't eat in restaurants. That's what one would expect, but it has nothing to do with it at all. However, people will somehow make that erroneous connection, as you just did. Sorry, but something about this article stinks.

Gifted Gourmet · February 18, 2004

Perhaps the point of the article was more about the "shatnes" aspect ... :rolleyes:

Sorry, but something about this article stinks.

Why are you so aggravated about this article? Not a fan of the NYT?

Edited February 18, 2004 by Gifted Gourmet (log)

tommy · February 18, 2004

In my opinion, he clearly has some kind of social anxiety disorder...

i wonder if he's on egullet? :unsure: :biggrin:

cakewalk · February 18, 2004

Why are you so aggravated about this article? Not a fan of the NYT?

It's not that. I'm a daily Times reader (and crossword puzzle doer). I am not amongst those who insist that the NY Times in an anti-semitic paper (it definitely is not, IMO). But this article irks me, mostly because it seems to have no real point but leads the reader to make all sorts of faulty conclusions. About Jews. And that does bother me. Can anyone come up with a reasonable idea of what this article is trying to say, if anything?

alacarte · February 18, 2004

Maybe (OK, probably) I'm in a curmudgeonly mood, but this article pissed me off. It's an article about a guy who hasn't eaten in a restaurant recently. When you get toward the end of the article, it's revealed that why yes, he HAS eaten in a restaurant. A few times, though not for several decades since. The headline and the first 3/4 of the article belie this fact, buried conveniently at the end of the article.

The article also annoyed me because I thought it was disrespectful of Glustein, the subject of the article, and his lifestyle, though not in an overt way.

I'd bet that there are lots of people living below the poverty line or living in isolated areas of the country who haven't been to a restaurant lately, or at all. Let the NYT focus on the homeless people who --in effect-- "dine out" EVERY day because they have no kitchen. Leave this poor schlub alone, instead of dragging him to a restaurant he obviously didn't care to attend, and then poke fun at him in a national newpaper for just living his life without dumping the contents of his wallet into restaurateur's pockets.

Gifted Gourmet · February 18, 2004

Why are you so aggravated about this article? Not a fan of the NYT?
It's not that. I'm a daily Times reader (and crossword puzzle doer). I am not amongst those who insist that the NY Times in an anti-semitic paper (it definitely is not, IMO). But this article irks me, mostly because it seems to have no real point but leads the reader to make all sorts of faulty conclusions. About Jews. And that does bother me. Can anyone come up with a reasonable idea of what this article is trying to say, if anything?

Actually, cakewalk, I do agree most heartily with you on the possible drawing of erroneous conclusions about Jews ... and the well-disguised true intent of the article as well ...

and, I have a sneaking suspicion, that if you were to make just such a request of the interviewer by email, there might be some forthcoming answers ...

shall I do this? or would you prefer to ask?

and I also concur, leave Glustein alone .. yet he did not need to sit for the interview .... :rolleyes:

cakewalk · February 18, 2004

and I also concur, leave Glustein alone .. yet he did not need to sit for the interview ....

Yes, that's quite puzzling, isn't it. Why did he agree? I guess everyone (EVERYONE) really does want his 15 minutes, evil eye be damned.

But you can e-mail the interviewer, and please keep us posted. I have a feeling you'll do a better job of it than I will. :biggrin:

mrbigjas · February 18, 2004

i wonder if he's on egullet?

If he is, I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of money that he's not one of those people who posts pictures of dishes he's made or had.

Jinmyo · February 18, 2004

I thought he wouldn't eat in restaurants for sanitation fears or he is agoraphobic but the main reason it seems is he doesn't like people looking at his food. That's a whole other issue. He probably wasn't able to eat that tuna sandwich after the photographer took the picture.

Such a shame after the blind fisherfolk, the blind baker, and his blindfolded wife put so much work into making it.

ludja · February 18, 2004

I thought he wouldn't eat in restaurants for sanitation fears or he is agoraphobic but the main reason it seems is he doesn't like people looking at his food. That's a whole other issue. He probably wasn't able to eat that tuna sandwich after the photographer took the picture.
Such a shame after the blind fisherfolk, the blind baker, and his blindfolded wife put so much work into making it.

:laugh:

Gifted Gourmet · February 18, 2004

and I also concur, leave Glustein alone .. yet he did not need to sit for the interview ....
Yes, that's quite puzzling, isn't it. Why did he agree? I guess everyone (EVERYONE) really does want his 15 minutes, evil eye be damned.
But you can e-mail the interviewer, and please keep us posted. I have a feeling you'll do a better job of it than I will.

He has a suspicion that the evil eye (and therein lies yet another tale, even lengthier still!) or Einhoreh - The evil eye will not recognize him if his name is misspelled, as he requests ...

I'll try to find out the answers to our "and your point is?" questions, cakewalk, and get back to you should there be a forthcoming response ... :rolleyes:

Edited February 18, 2004 by Gifted Gourmet (log)

Pan · February 18, 2004

and I also concur, leave Glustein alone .. yet he did not need to sit for the interview ....
Yes, that's quite puzzling, isn't it. Why did he agree?

He agreed on the condition that his occupation was detailed. I think the motivation was simply to inform more of the Jewish portion of the Times' readership about shatnes.

Gifted Gourmet · February 18, 2004

Perhaps the point of the article was more about the "shatnes" aspect ...

Pan, you and I have drawn precisely the same conclusion .. after all, it is his lifeswork and is it also not an obligation to inform other Jews of the performing of this mitzvah? or, rather, the din?

Only Rabbi Ribeye will know where the truth lies ...

cakewalk · February 18, 2004

and I also concur, leave Glustein alone .. yet he did not need to sit for the interview ....
Yes, that's quite puzzling, isn't it. Why did he agree?
He agreed on the condition that his occupation was detailed. I think the motivation was simply to inform more of the Jewish portion of the Times' readership about shatnes.

The Lord truly does work in mysterious ways, doesn't She? :biggrin:

Gifted Gourmet, I await your responses. Thanks.

Gifted Gourmet · February 18, 2004

The Lord truly does work in mysterious ways, doesn't She?
Gifted Gourmet, I await your responses. Thanks.

That would also be my conclusion, cakewalk, that She does!

Fantasy scenario: Currently "on hold" waiting for Howard Kaplan to return from lunch in his favorite restaurant ... no doubt, not the one mentioned in the article .. but, as comedian Dennis Miller often reminds us, "I could be wrong" .... :rolleyes:

Reality scenario: Update on contacting Howard Kaplan, this was the response I received: "If the person you want to reach is not listed, he or she either does not have e-mail or does not make the address public." :hmmm: so it looks dubious that I can locate him ... but then neither can the evil eye!