At this point, it's almost an axiom of life that Plotnicki, justifying himself, will end by looking even worse.

Mike G wrote:At this point, it's almost an axiom of life that Plotnicki, justifying himself, will end by looking even worse.

At this point, he's become a verb. "The guy tried to plotnicki himself a table, but was laughed at by the matre D'".

He sounds like the Bernie Madoff of restaurant advisors.

teatpuller wrote:He sounds like the Bernie Madoff of restaurant advisors.

Now he's an advisor?

stevez wrote:

teatpuller wrote:He sounds like the Bernie Madoff of restaurant advisors.

Now he's an advisor?

I have no idea what he is actually. Some sort of blogger. Had to make the analogy work.

I don't understand the analogy. Madoff was, among other things, an investment advisor. But he didn't get in trouble for "advising," but for "investing".

Saw this last night. I thought Steve Plotnicki was the only one of the internet personalities who didn't come across as a weirdo.

I have been holding off posting here since any thread about Steve Plotnicki seems to devolve into chaos, but I must say that the posts here (not the previous one) about SP seem to demonstrate Bourdain's point. I don't mind that occurring on eGullet or OA, but let us try to preserve LTH. All of the bloggers on No Reservations are men (!) who care deeply about the quality of the food they eat and wish to share their perspectives with others - and how different is this from us?

GAF wrote:I must say that the posts here (not the previous one) about SP seem to demonstrate Bourdain's point.

Which posts demonstrate which Bourdain point? I don't ask to incite any kind of argument - I genuinely don't know what you mean.

The posts that criticize SP on a personal basis, which demonstrate the needlessly contentious and personal basis of food board discussions. Steve Plotnicki as Bernie Madoff???

GAF wrote:The posts that criticize SP on a personal basis, which demonstrate the needlessly contentious and personal basis of food board discussions. Steve Plotnicki as Bernie Madoff???

Can't say I understand that comparison either

rickster wrote:Saw this last night. I thought Steve Plotnicki was the only one of the internet personalities who didn't come across as a weirdo.

+1 on that


Also..
Could people stop with the personal attacks here?
Mods? What's up with leaving all these attacks on Steve?

mhill95149 wrote:

rickster wrote:Saw this last night. I thought Steve Plotnicki was the only one of the internet personalities who didn't come across as a weirdo.

+1 on that


Also..
Could people stop with the personal attacks here?
Mods? What's up with leaving all these attacks on Steve?

Not sure if you're serious or not.

I actually found Bourdain to be in a less defensible position. I couldn't imagine why he found it so hard to understand that people take pictures of food (his whole program is pictures of food with some environmental footage to set the context for the images of food) and surely he is being somewhat disingenuous when he pretends not to understand how people can be so passionate about food.

However, Bourdain's remark about long-term friendships torn asunder by disagreements over the ingredients of a dish or other food issues, well, we've all seen that right here on this board. Lamentable but it has happened and no doubt will happen again.

Perlow, Shaw, Plotnicki, all came across as passionate, eccentric, committed (and perhaps committable) people, of which we in this community have no small share of our own, thankfully.

David Hammond wrote:However, Bourdain's remark about long-term friendships torn asunder by disagreements over the ingredients of a dish or other food issues, well, we've all seen that right here on this board. Lamentable but it has happened and no doubt will happen again

My sense in these situations, it was really a series of issues causing these breakups. That someone argued over an ingredient, it was really a last straw moment rather than the cause.

Regards,

Cathy2 wrote:

David Hammond wrote:However, Bourdain's remark about long-term friendships torn asunder by disagreements over the ingredients of a dish or other food issues, well, we've all seen that right here on this board. Lamentable but it has happened and no doubt will happen again

My sense in these situations, it was really a series of issues causing these breakups. That someone argued over an ingredient, it was really a last straw moment rather than the cause.

Regards,

Okay, now you're pissing me off.

mhill95149 wrote:What's up with leaving all these attacks on Steve?

I think this post of his answers the question about why its OK to attack him. Hilariously similar to the L2o situation.

Kennyz wrote:

mhill95149 wrote:What's up with leaving all these attacks on Steve?

I think this post of his answers the question about why its OK to attack him. Hilariously similar to the L2o situation.

thanks for the link Kenny,

if that guy is even 1/2 as abrasive, and self absorbed(other words came to mind but I thought id be nice for once) in person as he is in his writing he does deserve to be given a little bit of a hard time imho.

I don't feel like bashing him, but I allow myself a little amusement at his expense. I imagine he doesn't mind, and is probably happy to have people read his website for whatever reason they choose, and even happier to have people talking about him so much.

Kennyz wrote:I don't feel like bashing him, but I allow myself a little amusement at his expense.

I wont bash him either(I honestly have no idea who he is, or who the others on the show were besides Bourdain).

I always enjoy reading about myself as if I'm not really there. People concoct this funny reality in their heads, which has mostly to do with their own personalities, and which usually has very little to do with actual reality. But I guess this is how the saying, "any publicity is good publicity" came about. In the world of public relatations, idiotic statments are often accorded similar weight, sometimes more, than substantive comments, and many of the posts on this thread go a long way in proving that point. But thanks to those of you who offered a fair account of the episode, even if you were being critical.

But now that I've probably pissed a bunch of people off here by saying that, let me go on to the real purpose of my visit which is to ask Kenny Z, who posted a link to my article on David Myers being a schmuck, if he believes that is how a chef should treat people who are laying down $125 a person for dinner? Kenny, don't you believe that people should be able to get the food they would like to eat?

Welcome back, Steve! Who would like to start the countdown to thread-lock time? I put the over/under at 16 posts after mine. Anyone want a piece of the action?

I noticed that you avoided my question. Come on, what's your answer. Do you think that when customers are paying $125 a person for dinner, that it's okay for the chef to refuse to serve you the food you want to eat? I mean you must be okay with it or else you wouldn't have posted a link to my post in a negative context.

Can we agree that this is a correct statement, KennyZ is on the side of the chef and not the consumer?

Steve Plotnicki wrote:I noticed that you avoided my question. Come on, what's your answer. Do you think that when customers are paying $125 a person for dinner, that it's okay for the chef to refuse to serve you the food you want to eat? I mean you must be okay with it or else you wouldn't have posted a link to my post in a negative context.

Can we agree that this is a correct statement, KennyZ is on the side of the chef and not the consumer?

I cannot respond to you without unfairly skewing the over/under.

let me correct myself. i quickly read the linked article and mistook plotnicki for steven shaw. my apologies to mr. plotnicki.

teatpuller wrote:let me correct myself. i quickly read the linked article and mistook plotnicki for steven shaw. my apologies to mr. plotnicki.

So Shaw is Bernie Madoff? Still doesn't make sense to me.

Kennyz wrote:I cannot respond to you without unfairly skewing the over/under.

You mean you need to change the subject because you don't have a way to explain your actions in the context of claiming you are a food lover.

No need for the over/under or to lock the thread. This is my last post on the topic unless you are willing to offer a better answer,

Steve Plotnicki wrote:

Kennyz wrote:I cannot respond to you without unfairly skewing the over/under.

You mean you need to change the subject because you don't have a way to explain your actions in the context of claiming you are a food lover.

No need for the over/under or to lock the thread. This is my last post on the topic unless you are willing to offer a better answer,

Thanks for the brief entertainment, at least.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:I noticed that you avoided my question. Come on, what's your answer. Do you think that when customers are paying $125 a person for dinner, that it's okay for the chef to refuse to serve you the food you want to eat?

Simple answer: Yes.

Less simple answer: Depends on what you want to eat.

Important essence: No matter what the price, there are unreasonable requests, and what does or does not constitute unreasonable will never be agreed upon by all.

Hopefully that sums it up and we can move on.

While I agree that there are instances where it is inappropriate to demand that a chef change things, I just don't understand your point of view. Why would a consumer ever want to take a position that is anti-consumer?

Steve Plotnicki wrote:While I agree that there are instances where it is inappropriate to demand that a chef change things, I just don't understand your point of view. Why would a consumer ever want to take a position that is anti-consumer?

Do we really need to rehash the l2O thead all over again? I said it there, and I'll say it here again now. Just because you can do something, and just because somebody will let you do something doesn't mean it's right to do it. I don't understand why it strikes you as such a crazy concept, Steve, but not everybody is driven purely or predominantly by self-interest.