Dmnkly wrote:With apologies for the tangent, how is it that a cuisine so ill-suited to buffets somehow managed to adopt them as a hallmark? Indian makes sense, what with all of the simmered dishes that often improve when they have time to rest. But stir-fry suffers horribly if it sits for five minutes, to say nothing of hours in a chafing dish. Was it initially a matter of "value"? A way of getting people to try dishes in what was at one time a very unfamiliar cuisine for many people? I'm mostly just musing -- it's never made any sense to me.
I so agree with you, but the one on Roselle/Higgins is definitely NOT one of those places that has 50 items on it. It usually has like 6 hot entree type foods, a soup, some fruit, and a two fried appetizer type things. I'm not saying this makes it good in any way, but in my mind and palate, it makes it better than most of those chinese buffets that are just vast wastelands of 50 types of really bad food. I mostly liked the place because it was decent, and not overrun by the corporate lunch crowd since it was fairly hidden. I have found two really good items on the buffet each time that I've gone -probably about 6 times ttl. I found it to be a fair value everything considered.
We cannot be friends if you do not know the difference between Mayo and Miracle Whip.