Bruni and Beyond: NYC Reviewing (2007)

[oakapple]

I'm going to respond simultaneously to oakapple, rich and JohnL cause I think you're all in error in exactly the same way.

You're all taking restaurant reviews way way too seriously and the descriptions of what Bruni does way too literally (no, he wasn't purporting to be Woodward circa 1974 or Hersh circa 1968).

I don't take restaurant reviews "seriously" in that sense. Fine dining is a form of entertainment, and the restaurant reviews themselves ought to be entertaining. Bruni is not writing "news," and his pieces shouldn't be compared to Woodward & Bernstein.

Nevertheless, his screw-ups, errors, and misjudgments are open to legitimate criticism.

"Dining & Wine" is  in the Style Section, not the Arts Section.  Period.

←

So what, question mark? I don't think the section of the newspaper matters very much. Period. Whether you like the piece or not, comma, its suitability doesn't change if it moves to another section of the paper. Period.

[rich]

FWIW, I think that "he's not a critic, he's an investigative reporter" is some of the biggest bullshit I've ever heard.

←

Agreed SE - so why did the Times print it?

[Nathan]

You're all taking restaurant reviews way way too seriously and the descriptions of what Bruni does way too literally

←

It was the Times who printed that he is a investigative restaurant reporter - no one put those words in their mouth. That sounds like he and the Times take the position quite seriously. If they didn't, why use that terminology?

Since they're in the "business," I would think they undertstand the use of the term "Investigative Reporter." If they don't, they ignore all my criticism, they're not a paper in critical condition - they're already flatlined.

←

dude, that wasn't literal! seriously, how can you read it that way?

edit: it was an ad for goodness sakes...I am more certain of this than anything that I have ever posted on egullet....that this was not intended to be literal...and you guys are the only ones taking it that way (I think oakapple gets it).

Edited March 6, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Sneakeater]

FWIW, I think that "he's not a critic, he's an investigative reporter" is some of the biggest bullshit I've ever heard.

←

Agreed SE - so why did the Times print it?

←

Because they were engaging in shameful advertising hype.

But I don't attribute that section to The Death Of The Times. I attribute it to The Waning Of Print Media.

[Nathan]

I'm going to respond simultaneously to oakapple, rich and JohnL cause I think you're all in error in exactly the same way.

You're all taking restaurant reviews way way too seriously and the descriptions of what Bruni does way too literally (no, he wasn't purporting to be Woodward circa 1974 or Hersh circa 1968).

I don't take restaurant reviews "seriously" in that sense. Fine dining is a form of entertainment, and the restaurant reviews themselves ought to be entertaining. Bruni is not writing "news," and his pieces shouldn't be compared to Woodward & Bernstein.

Nevertheless, his screw-ups, errors, and misjudgments are open to legitimate criticism.

"Dining & Wine" is  in the Style Section, not the Arts Section.  Period.

←

So what, question mark? I don't think the section of the newspaper matters very much. Period. Whether you like the piece or not, comma, its suitability doesn't change if it moves to another section of the paper. Period.

←

I agree with most of this...I disagree that the section of the newspaper doesn't matter...

a. I have been told that it matters a great deal by more than one Times employee. b. you're not going to see breezy, familiar writing in the Politics or Washington sections.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Nathan (log)

[Nathan]

in fact, the image of Bruni as the intrepid investigative reporter is darn funny...(think back to Reichl and maybe the joke will become clear).

egullet sometimes suffers from an overabundance of literalism...and this thread is no exception.

[rich]

You're all taking restaurant reviews way way too seriously and the descriptions of what Bruni does way too literally

←

It was the Times who printed that he is a investigative restaurant reporter - no one put those words in their mouth. That sounds like he and the Times take the position quite seriously. If they didn't, why use that terminology?

Since they're in the "business," I would think they undertstand the use of the term "Investigative Reporter." If they don't, they ignore all my criticism, they're not a paper in critical condition - they're already flatlined.

←

dude, that wasn't literal! seriously, how can you read it that way?

edit: it was an ad for goodness sakes...I am more certain of this than anything that I have ever posted on egullet....that this was not intended to be literal...and you guys are the only ones taking it that way (I think oakapple gets it).

←

So now we're saying the ads the Times prints about itself aren't true or are not to be taken literal? The paper that claims everyday "All the News That's FIT to Print," is in the business of misleading the public?

I always thought the Times believed in the term "truth in advertising?" At least their many editorials on that subject indicated such.

Okay - so I believe what the Times prints when? Self promotion ads - no; restaurant reviews - no; sports - sometimes (at least when Dave Anderson is writing); arts and entertainment - ???; hard news - yes, unless the reporter(s) is just writing his/her version of the events.

Hmmmm - seems all clear to me now.

Edited March 6, 2007 by rich (log)

[JohnL]

There are many problems with the Times, as well as with the dining section, but these claims of tabloid journalism and sensationalism are, at best, out of touch. I mean, I'm looking through the archives, and here's a 1956 article titled "HIGH AIDES' SONS IN SOVIET 'ORGIES'; Moscow Stirred by Report of Sex Scandal Involving Top Official." It begins "This capital is atwitter with the reverberations of a sex and crime scandal attributed by Komsomolskaya Pravda to spoiled teenage children of some leading Communists." Here's a piece from 1977 by Lois Gold about promiscuity, double standards and taboos at MIT that begins "Casanova would have hated it. Don Juan would have thought it was sick. Frank Harris would suspect it was somewhat exaggerated, and Aretino would have said he told you so. As for me, I thought it was historic." And of course we can make the rounds of the other top newspapers today -- Wall Street Journal, Washington Post -- and find plenty of what could be labeled (incorrectly), by the same standards (if you can call them that) that are being presented here, sensationalism and tabloid journalism. That line of argument is just totally off base. What we're talking about here is a simple editorial choice to feature something funny and entertaining. It's not a crisis of ethics in journalism or the death of the Times.

←

I don't believe this has much to do with sensationalism or tabloid journalism as much as it has to do with the basic function of a newspaper in providing accurate reporting as well as gravitas. There's plenty of room for entertainment and opinion.

The Times (and other new outlets) are basically downplaying or sublimating good accurate reporting which engenders trust and lends gravitas to their coverage (of whatever)-- in favor of "personality reporting" that amounts to reporting imbued with the so called life experience and personality of the person doing the reporting.

There are some very talented reporters/writers who can pull this off and maintain a standard of accuracy and detachment a good reporter needs to accurately convey information and perspective.

A review (of anything) is always part objective and part subjective. The fact that the paper itself "brags" that their reporter on global climate is in fact, a musician who plays with an environmental activist like Pete Seeger is indicative of how the current management "sees" the role of reporters. How anyone could possibly read a piece on global warming and feel comfortable that the paper is presenting a subject with accuracy and expertise is beyond me.

Restaurant reviewing is not as serious as general news reporting. I agree.

However, isn't it more important that its reviews (as opposed to feature writing or blogging are imbued with perspective and experience as well as overall expertise? (one can provide this and be witty and entertaining in the process).

To use someone you note as an example Mimi Sheraton is more than qualified to write reviews of restaurants. She is also an entertaining writer.

While her writing is personal she does not let her personality get in the way of the task at had--reviewing a restaurant.

I feel that while he has his moments, Bruni's writing is awkward and one wonders what how to take his comments--does he really know what he is talking about? I agree he knows his cinema and musical theatre!

There's just way too much debate over Bruni at this point to make even his fans feel comfortable that he has credibility as a restaurant and food critic.

[rich]

But I don't attribute that section to The Death Of The Times.  I attribute it to The Waning Of Print Media.

←

You're being kind. Other papers have moved into the 21st Century quite comfortably by using the internet to its advantage.

[Nathan]

You're all taking restaurant reviews way way too seriously and the descriptions of what Bruni does way too literally

←

It was the Times who printed that he is a investigative restaurant reporter - no one put those words in their mouth. That sounds like he and the Times take the position quite seriously. If they didn't, why use that terminology?

Since they're in the "business," I would think they undertstand the use of the term "Investigative Reporter." If they don't, they ignore all my criticism, they're not a paper in critical condition - they're already flatlined.

←

dude, that wasn't literal! seriously, how can you read it that way?

edit: it was an ad for goodness sakes...I am more certain of this than anything that I have ever posted on egullet....that this was not intended to be literal...and you guys are the only ones taking it that way (I think oakapple gets it).

←

So now we're saying the ads the Times prints about itself aren't true or are not to be taken literal? The paper that claims everyday "All the News That's FIT to Print," is in the business of misleading the public?

I always thought the Times believed in the term "truth in advertising?" At least their many editorials on that sobject indicated such.

Okay - so I believe what the Times prints when? Self promotion ads - no; restaurant reviews - no; sports - sometimes (at least when Dave Anderson is writing); arts and entertainment - ???; hard news - yes, unless the reporter(s) is just writing his/her version of the events.

Hmmmm - seems all clear to me now.

←

are you unfamiliar with the concept of humor? frankly, I find this all to be absolutely ridiculous.

[Sneakeater]

There are many problems with the Times, as well as with the dining section, but these claims of tabloid journalism and sensationalism are, at best, out of touch. I mean, I'm looking through the archives, and here's a 1956 article titled "HIGH AIDES' SONS IN SOVIET 'ORGIES'; Moscow Stirred by Report of Sex Scandal Involving Top Official." It begins "This capital is atwitter with the reverberations of a sex and crime scandal attributed by Komsomolskaya Pravda to spoiled teenage children of some leading Communists." Here's a piece from 1977 by Lois Gold about promiscuity, double standards and taboos at MIT that begins "Casanova would have hated it. Don Juan would have thought it was sick. Frank Harris would suspect it was somewhat exaggerated, and Aretino would have said he told you so. As for me, I thought it was historic." And of course we can make the rounds of the other top newspapers today -- Wall Street Journal, Washington Post -- and find plenty of what could be labeled (incorrectly), by the same standards (if you can call them that) that are being presented here, sensationalism and tabloid journalism. That line of argument is just totally off base. What we're talking about here is a simple editorial choice to feature something funny and entertaining. It's not a crisis of ethics in journalism or the death of the Times.

←

I don't believe this has much to do with sensationalism or tabloid journalism as much as it has to do with the basic function of a newspaper in providing accurate reporting as well as gravitas. There's plenty of room for entertainment and opinion.

The Times (and other new outlets) are basically downplaying or sublimating good accurate reporting which engenders trust and lends gravitas to their coverage (of whatever)-- in favor of "personality reporting" that amounts to reporting imbued with the so called life experience and personality of the person doing the reporting.

There are some very talented reporters/writers who can pull this off and maintain a standard of accuracy and detachment a good reporter needs to accurately convey information and perspective.

A review (of anything) is always part objective and part subjective. The fact that the paper itself "brags" that their reporter on global climate is in fact, a musician who plays with an environmental activist like Pete Seeger is indicative of how the current management "sees" the role of reporters. How anyone could possibly read a piece on global warming and feel comfortable that the paper is presenting a subject with accuracy and expertise is beyond me.

Restaurant reviewing is not as serious as general news reporting. I agree.

However, isn't it more important that its reviews (as opposed to feature writing or blogging are imbued with perspective and experience as well as overall expertise? (one can provide this and be witty and entertaining in the process).

To use someone you note as an example Mimi Sheraton is more than qualified to write reviews of restaurants. She is also an entertaining writer.

While her writing is personal she does not let her personality get in the way of the task at had--reviewing a restaurant.

I feel that while he has his moments, Bruni's writing is awkward and one wonders what how to take his comments--does he really know what he is talking about? I agree he knows his cinema and musical theatre!

There's just way too much debate over Bruni at this point to make even his fans feel comfortable that he has credibility as a restaurant and food critic.

←

But there are two separate issues.

Bruni's competence as a restaurant reviewer: I think most here agree here it's low.

The appropriateness of the Robert's review: that's what there's been disagreement about. I don't see one as having much to do with the other.

Edited March 6, 2007 by Sneakeater (log)

[Nathan]

There are many problems with the Times, as well as with the dining section, but these claims of tabloid journalism and sensationalism are, at best, out of touch. I mean, I'm looking through the archives, and here's a 1956 article titled "HIGH AIDES' SONS IN SOVIET 'ORGIES'; Moscow Stirred by Report of Sex Scandal Involving Top Official." It begins "This capital is atwitter with the reverberations of a sex and crime scandal attributed by Komsomolskaya Pravda to spoiled teenage children of some leading Communists." Here's a piece from 1977 by Lois Gold about promiscuity, double standards and taboos at MIT that begins "Casanova would have hated it. Don Juan would have thought it was sick. Frank Harris would suspect it was somewhat exaggerated, and Aretino would have said he told you so. As for me, I thought it was historic." And of course we can make the rounds of the other top newspapers today -- Wall Street Journal, Washington Post -- and find plenty of what could be labeled (incorrectly), by the same standards (if you can call them that) that are being presented here, sensationalism and tabloid journalism. That line of argument is just totally off base. What we're talking about here is a simple editorial choice to feature something funny and entertaining. It's not a crisis of ethics in journalism or the death of the Times.

←

I don't believe this has much to do with sensationalism or tabloid journalism as much as it has to do with the basic function of a newspaper in providing accurate reporting as well as gravitas. There's plenty of room for entertainment and opinion.

The Times (and other new outlets) are basically downplaying or sublimating good accurate reporting which engenders trust and lends gravitas to their coverage (of whatever)-- in favor of "personality reporting" that amounts to reporting imbued with the so called life experience and personality of the person doing the reporting.

There are some very talented reporters/writers who can pull this off and maintain a standard of accuracy and detachment a good reporter needs to accurately convey information and perspective.

A review (of anything) is always part objective and part subjective. The fact that the paper itself "brags" that their reporter on global climate is in fact, a musician who plays with an environmental activist like Pete Seeger is indicative of how the current management "sees" the role of reporters. How anyone could possibly read a piece on global warming and feel comfortable that the paper is presenting a subject with accuracy and expertise is beyond me.

Restaurant reviewing is not as serious as general news reporting. I agree.

However, isn't it more important that its reviews (as opposed to feature writing or blogging are imbued with perspective and experience as well as overall expertise? (one can provide this and be witty and entertaining in the process).

To use someone you note as an example Mimi Sheraton is more than qualified to write reviews of restaurants. She is also an entertaining writer.

While her writing is personal she does not let her personality get in the way of the task at had--reviewing a restaurant.

I feel that while he has his moments, Bruni's writing is awkward and one wonders what how to take his comments--does he really know what he is talking about? I agree he knows his cinema and musical theatre!

There's just way too much debate over Bruni at this point to make even his fans feel comfortable that he has credibility as a restaurant and food critic.

←

But there are two separate issues.

Bruni's competence as a restaurant reviewer: I think most here agree here its low.

The appropriateness of the Robert's review: that's what there's been disagreement about. I don't see one as having much to do with the other.

←

of course. my point is that the argument for the appropriateness of the Robert's review (and that of the Waverly Inn and Sascha) rests a good deal on the fact that restaurant reviews at the Times rest in a section which is entertainment focused and where casual, familiar writing is encouraged. If that review was in the Arts or News sections I think the criticisms would have more validity.

[rich]

are you unfamiliar with the concept of humor?  frankly, I find this all to be absolutely ridiculous.

←

You're asking me that question? :shock:

I have probably posted more off-beat, humorous (attempted) comments on eGullet than anyone.

Somehow I don't think the Times was attempting to be funny with that ad - I think they were trying to portray an individual as something he's not. That's not funny, humorous, it's (quoting SE here) just bullshit.

Edited March 6, 2007 by rich (log)

[Nathan]

are you unfamiliar with the concept of humor?  frankly, I find this all to be absolutely ridiculous.

←

You're asking me that question? :shock:

I have probably posted more off-beat, humorous (attempted) comments on eGullet than anyone.

Somehow I don't think the Times was attempting to be funny with that ad - I think they were trying to portray an individual as something he's not. That's not funny, humorous, it's (quoting SE here) just bullshit.

←

there's not a single doubt in my mind that the ad was tongue-in-cheek. not a doubt.

[rich]

there's not a single doubt in my mind that the ad was tongue-in-cheek.  not a doubt.

←

Nathan, how about we just agree to disagree?

[Sneakeater]

of course.  my point is that the argument for the appropriateness of the Robert's review (and that of the Waverly Inn and Sascha) rests a good deal on the fact that restaurant reviews at the Times rest in a section which is entertainment focused and where casual, familiar writing is encouraged.  If that review was in the Arts or News sections I think the criticisms would have more validity.

←

But where I disagree with you on this is that to me, the question isn't what rubric the Times puts these reviews under. It's whether they work. The Sasha and Waverly Inn reviews were precious, pretentious pieces of shit that failed to satisfy the most basic requirements of valid reviewing. The fact that they were in a "Styles" section doesn't change that.

The Robert's review, on the other hand, worked. Again, irrespective of whether it was in a "Styles" section.

The fact that the Times may demoninate the food section as a "Styles" section doesn't absolve the restaurant reviews from the basic requirements of reviewing, or restaurant reviewers from basic requirements of competance in the field. It's still a review.

[Nathan]

of course.  my point is that the argument for the appropriateness of the Robert's review (and that of the Waverly Inn and Sascha) rests a good deal on the fact that restaurant reviews at the Times rest in a section which is entertainment focused and where casual, familiar writing is encouraged.  If that review was in the Arts or News sections I think the criticisms would have more validity.

←

But where I disagree with you on this is that to me, the question isn't what rubric the Times puts these reviews under. It's whether they work. The Sasha and Waverly Inn reviews were precious, pretentious pieces of shit that failed to satisfy the most basic requirements of valid reviewing. The fact that they were in a "Styles" section doesn't change that.

The Robert's review, on the other hand, worked. Again, irrespective of whether it was in a "Styles" section.

The fact that the Times may demoninate the food section as a "Styles" section doesn't absolve the restaurant reviews from the basic requirements of reviewing, or restaurant reviewers from basic requirements of competance in the field. It's still a review.

←

I generally agree with this...but it doesn't go to my point.

[Fat Guy]

It may be that if, in 1975, Paul Bocuse came to America and started serving Soupe V.G.E. and other nouvelle cuisine in a topless bar, the New York Times would have either 1- ignored the story, 2- taken a totally literal, humorless approach to the story, or 3- buried the story on an interior page and shown a photo of the soup. And that's why the Times is, at least in this limited way, a better newspaper now than it was in 1975. Because it would be wrong to ignore the story, pathetic to treat it in a humorless manner, and just plain wrong to bury it.

It's also worth noting, again, that Frank Bruni is a serious journalist. He was a Pulitzer finalist for his work at the Detroit Free Press, and he held several prestigious positions at the Times (he also, long ago, worked at the New York Post, but the unfair swipes being taken at the Post are for another topic in a different forum). He knows plenty about serious journalism. He's not some clueless kid -- he made an informed decision to treat this particular subject in a particular way, and it worked for many of us.

[rich]

It may be that if, in 1975, Paul Bocuse came to America and started serving Soupe V.G.E. and other nouvelle cuisine in a topless bar, the New York Times would have either 1- ignored the story, 2- taken a totally literal, humorless approach to the story, or 3- buried the story on an interior page and shown a photo of the soup. And that's why the Times is, at least in this limited way, a better newspaper now than it was in 1975. Because it would be wrong to ignore the story, pathetic to treat it in a humorless manner, and just plain wrong to bury it.

It's also worth noting, again, that Frank Bruni is a serious journalist. He was a Pulitzer finalist for his work at the Detroit Free Press, and he held several prestigious positions at the Times (he also, long ago, worked at the New York Post, but the unfair swipes being taken at the Post are for another topic in a different forum). He knows plenty about serious journalism. He's not some clueless kid -- he made an informed decision to treat this particular subject in a particular way, and it worked for many of us.

←

Steve, no one is changing anyone's mind. My issue is the type and content of coverage, which has little to do with the reviewer. But everything seems to go back to him (for whatever the reason).

As with Nathan, let's just agree to disagree on this matter.

[oakapple]

my point is that the argument for the appropriateness of the Robert's review (and that of the Waverly Inn and Sascha) rests a good deal on the fact that restaurant reviews at the Times rest in a section which is entertainment focused and where casual, familiar writing is encouraged.  If that review was in the Arts or News sections I think the criticisms would have more validity.

←

My concern with Bruni is more with his work as a whole than with any particular review. Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that when he reviews a seriously important restaurant, he nails it. Then I don't mind if he lets his hair down and has fun with Sascha, The Waverly Inn, and Robert's Steakhouse.

But it's far more discouraging when the only great writing he does, is on the restaurants that don't matter very much.

Edited March 6, 2007 by oakapple (log)

[Nathan]

my point is that the argument for the appropriateness of the Robert's review (and that of the Waverly Inn and Sascha) rests a good deal on the fact that restaurant reviews at the Times rest in a section which is entertainment focused and where casual, familiar writing is encouraged.  If that review was in the Arts or News sections I think the criticisms would have more validity.

←

My concern with Bruni is more with his work as a whole than with any particular review. Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that when he reviews a seriously important restaurant, he nails it. Then I don't mind if he lets his hair down and has fun with Sascha, The Waverly Inn, and Robert's Steakhouse.

But it's far more discouraging when the only great writing he does, is on the restaurants that don't matter very much.

←

fwiw, we agree.

[H. du Bois]

There are many problems with the Times, as well as with the dining section, but these claims of tabloid journalism and sensationalism are, at best, out of touch. I mean, I'm looking through the archives, and here's a 1956 article titled "HIGH AIDES' SONS IN SOVIET 'ORGIES'; Moscow Stirred by Report of Sex Scandal Involving Top Official." It begins "This capital is atwitter with the reverberations of a sex and crime scandal attributed by Komsomolskaya Pravda to spoiled teenage children of some leading Communists." Here's a piece from 1977 by Lois Gold about promiscuity, double standards and taboos at MIT that begins "Casanova would have hated it. Don Juan would have thought it was sick. Frank Harris would suspect it was somewhat exaggerated, and Aretino would have said he told you so. As for me, I thought it was historic." And of course we can make the rounds of the other top newspapers today -- Wall Street Journal, Washington Post -- and find plenty of what could be labeled (incorrectly), by the same standards (if you can call them that) that are being presented here, sensationalism and tabloid journalism. That line of argument is just totally off base. What we're talking about here is a simple editorial choice to feature something funny and entertaining. It's not a crisis of ethics in journalism or the death of the Times.

←

I don't believe this has much to do with sensationalism or tabloid journalism as much as it has to do with the basic function of a newspaper in providing accurate reporting as well as gravitas. There's plenty of room for entertainment and opinion.

The Times (and other new outlets) are basically downplaying or sublimating good accurate reporting which engenders trust and lends gravitas to their coverage (of whatever)-- in favor of "personality reporting" that amounts to reporting imbued with the so called life experience and personality of the person doing the reporting.

There are some very talented reporters/writers who can pull this off and maintain a standard of accuracy and detachment a good reporter needs to accurately convey information and perspective.

A review (of anything) is always part objective and part subjective. The fact that the paper itself "brags" that their reporter on global climate is in fact, a musician who plays with an environmental activist like Pete Seeger is indicative of how the current management "sees" the role of reporters. How anyone could possibly read a piece on global warming and feel comfortable that the paper is presenting a subject with accuracy and expertise is beyond me.

Restaurant reviewing is not as serious as general news reporting. I agree.

However, isn't it more important that its reviews (as opposed to feature writing or blogging are imbued with perspective and experience as well as overall expertise? (one can provide this and be witty and entertaining in the process).

To use someone you note as an example Mimi Sheraton is more than qualified to write reviews of restaurants. She is also an entertaining writer.

While her writing is personal she does not let her personality get in the way of the task at had--reviewing a restaurant.

I feel that while he has his moments, Bruni's writing is awkward and one wonders what how to take his comments--does he really know what he is talking about? I agree he knows his cinema and musical theatre!

There's just way too much debate over Bruni at this point to make even his fans feel comfortable that he has credibility as a restaurant and food critic.

But there are two separate issues.

Bruni's competence as a restaurant reviewer: I think most here agree here it's low.

The appropriateness of the Robert's review: that's what there's been disagreement about. I don't see one as having much to do with the other.

Thank you. Agreed (on the two separate issues point).

[rich]

Actually, it's three and the third was my issue - the type and extent of coverge given by the Times, which as nothing to do with their reviewer.

But it's over now - we have all agreed to disagree and learn how to love each other again.

Edited March 6, 2007 by rich (log)

[TarteTatin]

Again:

Mr. Tarte Tatin wrote earlier; and now me.

Frank Bruni is great.

He's a storyteller, and allows those of us not able to go to the restaurants he writes about, to experience it in our minds.

He's funny. He's articulate.

He DOES know about food, now. Who cares about the past.

He's re-defining food reviewing.

We like his writing and his expertise.

And, most of all, his stories.

[rich]

It's a wonderful thing when parents are so loyal to a son.

Edited March 7, 2007 by rich (log)