Gentlemen, gentlemen . . . (and I hope that I am not using that term loosely). No one needs to read anything.

Everyone (who reads this thread) now knows about the guide and those who wish can peruse it further, and can, should they wish, comment further.

Steve... you're entitled to that opinion. I think it's a remarkably narrow and significantly less-than-worldly view of the world's food, but it's yours to keep. That said, if that opinion marginalizes entire genres of cooking, particularly in a national publication, you can't play the victim when your attitude makes people upset. And if you don't want this kind of discussion in reaction to your opinions, you might want to consider the wisdom of posting them in a forum that was founded on the beauty of underappreciated ethnic dives. If you walk into a church and say that religion is stupid, you can't play the victim when somebody decides to argue the point with you. In the case of LTH, your opinions are entirely welcome. But while you're entitled to your opinions, you're not entitled to having them go unchallenged.

If I may borrow your rhetoric, if you're the kind of person who doesn't like having your opinions on ethnic cuisine challenged, then I have a solution for you. Go post in a different forum that is more in tune with your sensibilities about food and stop wasting both our time and yours.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:I didn't editorialize based on the survey's results. I editorialized on the results for the rating and comments I collected on the individual restaurants that qualified for the survey.

I'm honestly not trying to be smart here. I don't understand the distinction. How are "the results for the rating and comments [you] collected on the individual restaurants that qualified for the survey" different from "the survey's results"?

Isn't it way too nice out to have this go 'round and 'round for the next 3 pages?

jesteinf wrote:Isn't it way too nice out to have this go 'round and 'round for the next 3 pages?

No, it's hot.

Dmnkly wrote:Steve... you're entitled to that opinion. I think it's a remarkably narrow and significantly less-than-worldly view of the world's food, but it's yours to keep. That said, if that opinion marginalizes entire genres of cooking, particularly in a national publication, you can't play the victim when your attitude makes people upset. And if you don't want this kind of discussion in reaction to your opinions, you might want to consider the wisdom of posting them in a forum that was founded on the beauty of underappreciated ethnic dives. If you walk into a church and say that religion is stupid, you can't play the victim when somebody decides to argue the point with you. In the case of LTH, your opinions are entirely welcome. But while you're entitled to your opinions, you're not entitled to having them go unchallenged.

Dom I have only one opinion about ethnic cuisine and that is it isn't as hard to cook as the food that people like Grant Achutz and Curtis Duffy cook. I also find that the ingredients that ethnic restaurants use are at best good and often poor. And as a result, I don't think it should be thought of as highly. But where you go wrong is by claiming that by saying that, I am somehow insulting or demeaning the food or the people who like ethnic food. Well it's just not true. When I say that, I offer it in the same light as if I said that it is harder to write like Hemmingway than Robert Ludlum, harder to master ballet than to square dance, harder to paint like Picasso than Leroy Nieman, and harder to learn calculus than algebra. It's just a factual statement that is offered so that it can provoke a discussion about what makes things good, what makes things less good, and in some instances, what makes things bad. And it is offered so that people can learn more about those topics. Nothing more.

Unfortunately, there are people who are defensive when they find out that what they like might not rate to the extent that they would like it to. Some people are accepting when they find that out and want to learn more. Some people hear the information and ignore it. But other people get defensive. Dara used the tact of acting defensive. The thing about it is, Dara is an old media hand and she knows there is nothing to be defensive about. In fact when it suits her, she speaks about food the same way I do. But she wanted to stoke the flames against my guide so she feigned that I somehow insulted the city’s Vietnamese restaurants, and by default, the people who lived there. It’s a silly argument that has no basis in truth and she knows it.

I'm honestly not trying to be smart here. I don't understand the distinction. How are "the results for the rating and comments [you] collected

The only representation I have made is about the restaurants that appeared in the guide. My editorial comments about those restaurants can be seen by anyone who picks up a copy of the book. But I haven’t made any representations about those that don’t appear (as explained above.) But Dara claimed that by leaving them out, that was some type of editorial statement on my part. It’s not true. And you know what, I would be happy to editorialize on the restaurants that didn’t make the guide. But nobody has asked me. Especially Dara.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Dom I have only one opinion about ethnic cuisine and that is it isn't as hard to cook as the food that people like Grant Achutz and Curtis Duffy cook. ... It's just a factual statement that is offered so that it can provoke a discussion about what makes things good, what makes things less good, and in some instances, what makes things bad.

The crux of the disagreement is that you state this opinion as fact.

Regarding Dara, what you're saying you wrote and what you actually wrote are two very different things. That's my opinion based on my reading of your text. Your quote was quite clear, and your many clarifications after the fact don't change it. It may or may not have been what you meant, but it's what you wrote.

Okay I will take a wild and crazy position. I say that the guy who operates the hot dog stand in Millenium Park, and who does nothing but throw the hot dogs into the boiling dirty water and then places them on split buns, is not as good a cook as Curtis Duffy. Do you think that statement is an opinion or a fact?

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Okay I will take a wild and crazy position. I say that the guy who operates the hot dog stand in Millenium Park, and who does nothing but throw the hot dogs into the boiling dirty water and then places them on split buns, is not as good a cook as Curtis Duffy. Do you think that statement is an opinion or a fact?

An opinion.

One on which I completely agree with you and for which I think that anybody who disagreed is either trying to make a point or crazy, but it's still an opinion. Unless there's a universally objective measure of which is harder, it's an opinion. A brick weighs more than a feather. That's objectively measurable. That's fact. Teddy Roosevelt was PoTUS. That's recorded, it's objective, it's factual. The difficulty in making a good hot potato, cold potato relative to making a good dirty water dog is subjective. Like I say, it's such an extreme example that I doubt anybody would disagree with that opinion, but it's still an opinion.

But this is a semantic discussion that gets away from the substance.

Where I think you err is in making blanket statements about the difficulty of executing ethnic cuisines. You see it as being on a different level of difficulty than Alinea. I don't. But neither of us are stating fact. We're both stating opinion (though I recognize them as such while you don't). In my opinion, great ethnic cuisine is just as hard to come by (maybe harder) as great fine dining. Is it because it's just as hard to produce, or due to other factors? That's open to debate. But again, it's an opinion. Not a fact. And if there's one thing that's anathema to intelligent discussion, it's stating opinion as fact.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:...I have only one opinion about ethnic cuisine and that is it isn't as hard to cook as the food that people like Grant Achutz and Curtis Duffy cook. I also find ...

This always cracks me up. Whenever Steve says "I don't have time for a lot of back and forth" or some such thing, you can be sure that he is devoting the rest of his day or more to the matter. Whenever he says "I'm done with this thread," you can be sure of at least 12 more posts. And whenever he has "only one opinion" about something, he is absolutely certain to talk about many. The only skill worse than Steve's math is his spelling of famous chefs' names.

Okay so I take a more practical view of things and I am willing to say that it's a fact. And the reason I say that is because according to the standards that govern any discussion on food, that is a reasonable conclusion for someone to reach. On the other hand, you say that because the evidence is circumstantial, and not a simple mathematical equation, you want to cling to the subjective nature of the discussion. Putting aside that I disagree with you, I have found that when I ask for dining advice for myself, I get better advice from people who agree with me, not with you. And I have also found that the more experienced a diner someone is, the greater the odds that they agree with me not you. So that is the idea behind my dining guide. Since the most experienced diners are more objective, and the best advice seems to come from the most experienced diners, the experienced diners have a greater say in the final result than the inexperienced diners have.

So you see it really is two different world views. One that wants to inject as much objectivity into the discussion as possible, and another that says that no matter how much circumstantial evidence exists, the baseline of the discussion must always be subjective. So let's agree to disagree. But what I don't understand is why you can't tolerate a world view that differs from your own, and why you try to argue it down everytime I articulate it. Since we are never going to agree, why don't you simply ignore what I say?

Hopefully that is the last post in this part of the discussion. I am sure GAF will agree with me when I say, we will all get more out of a discussion about what's in the book, rather than a discussion about what's not in it.

Is this Grant Achutz cat the dude from Ulinea?

No he's the guy from U-Haul.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Dom I have only one opinion about ethnic cuisine and that is it isn't as hard to cook as the food that people like Grant Achutz and Curtis Duffy cook. I also find that the ingredients that ethnic restaurants use are at best good and often poor. And as a result, I don't think it should be thought of as highly.

I guess I'm not even sure what you mean by "ethnic" food but I love the stereotyping. I take it you don't cook much? You've never made a Mexican mole sauce? And should I assume that I'm greatly overpaying for the food at Topolobampo because they're using low-end ingredients?

And while I am personally a huge fan of what both Grant Achatz and Curtis Duffy are doing, I think your bald conclusion that food that is more difficult to prepare must taste better is baseless - might not even be true 50% of the time.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:I have found that when I ask for dining advice for myself, I get better advice from people who agree with me, not with you.

Steve... of course you get better dining advice from people who agree with you. The very fact that they agree with you means they share your tastes, and you theirs. It doesn't mean the people who agree with you are right or more discerning or more knowledgeable, it means they share your opinion of what makes food great. One that, I might add, is highly subjective.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:And I have also found that the more experienced a diner someone is, the greater the odds that they agree with me not you. So that is the idea behind my dining guide.

Here, in addition to being unbearably condescending, you assume facts not in evidence. If you really think that the big posters here are less experienced diners -- haven't eaten in more places, haven't eaten out more often, haven't sampled a wider variety of the foods the world has to offer -- I think you're sorely mistaken (though neither of us has done an empirical analysis of such). When you speak of experience, you speak of experience within a very narrow genre of food. The one that interests you most. And again, that's fine. But to suggest that having more experience with a certain type of food means you're a more experienced diner period, or that experience outside of high-end restaurants is less valuable, is in my opinion wrong, but it's definitely condescending. Don't fool yourself. OA hasn't cornered the market on experienced diners.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:So you see it really is two different world views. One that wants to inject as much objectivity into the discussion as possible, and another that says that no matter how much circumstantial evidence exists, the baseline of the discussion must always be subjective. So let's agree to disagree.

Not entirely. I don't deny that there's value in experience and that comparisons can't be drawn and that some opinions aren't more informed or intelligent than others. But I feel that when it comes to dining and food, "experience" can take many more forms than you seem to acknowledge. I think you have a very particular view of what makes an experienced and informed diner, and what makes for good food or a good restaurant. It's a view that I think is to your detriment, the detriment of your readers, and the detriment of food enjoyment in general the world over, but it's your view and you're welcome to it.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:But what I don't understand is why you can't tolerate a world view that differs from your own, and why you try to argue it down everytime I articulate it. Since we are never going to agree, why don't you simply ignore what I say?

I can tolerate a world view that differs from mine just fine. What I can't tolerate is when it's stated it in such a condescending, dismissive and rude fashion, particularly when in the company of many of those who you have to know (or else you're profoundly ignorant about this forum) disagree strongly with you. I've had the same discussion that you and I are having now with many others, in a polite and congenial and mutually enjoyable manner. But as they say, it often comes down to tone, and yours, to be both frank and crude, sucks. I don't go to OA and troll about how fine dining is a less soulful type of cuisine and therefore isn't as worthy of interest and praise (partly because I don't believe it, but I hope you take the point), and act as though my view is empirical, unimpeachable fact, because that's just looking for a fight. Yet you come here, to a place that was founded by those who adore the food you dismiss so blithely, and act positively perplexed not only that somebody could disagree with you, but that they don't see the empirical truth of your position. You can't pick a fight in passive aggressive fashion and then act like you've been wronged when you get one. And it's not the opinion. It's you. There are others here who agree with you. But they don't share your tone and attitude.

I understand that your book isn't really about ethnic foods, and that's fine. End of discussion right there. But when you write lines like you did in your book (again, whether that's what you meant or not), take every opportunity to marginalize the skill of the few people who prepare ethnic foods well, and the experience of those for whom is it a passion, and do so here, you're going to get a fight. We've been through this enough times at this point that most of the others have realized it's an exercise in futility and are smart enough to ignore you. That I can't is perhaps my failing. But if you're going to take a dump on our passion, might I suggest you do so with a little more tact?

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Hopefully that is the last post in this part of the discussion. I am sure GAF will agree with me when I say, we will all get more out of a discussion about what's in the book, rather than a discussion about what's not in it.

Well, it wasn't. Sorry. And this won't be either, I'll bet cash money.

I never said that food that is harder to make tastes better. I said that cuisine should be organized according to the demands of the underlying culinary technique. Clearly there is bad molecular cuisine and great Mexican food. But that doesn't mean that we should ignore the underlying culinary technique. Think of it like figure skating or diving. Different routines or dives have different difficulty factors. So using that analogy, what Duffy and Grant cook has a far higher difficulty factor than what a person at a hot dog stand cooks. In fact Hot Doug's is one of my favorite places (and the top inexpnsive restaurant in the country in the OA guide) and the cooking there is simplistic. What makes the experience great happens before the sausages go on the grill.

I have made mole in my day and I cook quite often. In fact Mrs. P and I are pretty good home cooks and we have a fantastic garden where we grow much of the vegetables we eat during the summer. Having said that, we had friends over for dinner this weekend and we made soft shell crabs. After dinner our guests started thumbing though a copy of Modernist Cuisine that we keep in our kitchen. When one of them asked if we had made any of the recipes, my wife said, "are you kidding, they're too difficult." Which is exactly the point. In order to make soft shell crabs, you can buy a cookbook and figure it out. But in order to make the cream spinach recipe that Nathan Myhrvold published in Modernist Cuisine, you need to have a PHD in Physics, or at least thousands of hours working in a restaurant kitchen


Dom I didn’t say I get better dining advice from people who agree with my taste in food, I said that I get better dining advice from people who disagree with your conclusion about the hot dog stand. And the facts I cited are in evidence. Remember, I run a survey and I have collected thousands of ratings that I am basing my statements on.

Funny you bring that up. I have Modernist Cuisine as well, and looking through it, I was musing over how many of the recipes had been so thoroughly codified that, provided you have the proper equipment, they'd be easier to replicate than something like a mole. This exact thought went through my mind.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:Dom I didn’t say I get better dining advice from people who agree with my taste in food, I said that I get better dining advice from people who disagree with your conclusion about the hot dog stand.

Then I misunderstood, but the point stands either way. Those are people who share your worldview when it comes to food. Of course you get better dining advice (for you) from them. If a Catholic surrounds himself with Catholics, he's probably more likely to agree with them when it comes to religion. But it might not broaden his view as much.

I'm Jewish so I surrounded myself with investment bankers, accountants, economists and statisticians who oddly enough agree with me about what the statistics mean. But like I said, feel free to disagree. I just wish you would stop arguing with me about it.

That's funny. I thought an argument, by definition, required the participation of two parties. But since it's all my fault, I'll sign off. If my cadre of investment bankers, accountants, economists and statisticians are sufficiently awed by anything more you have to say, I'll be sure to offer you full credit.

I can tolerate a world view that differs from mine just fine. What I can't tolerate is when it's stated it in such a condescending, dismissive and rude fashion, particularly when in the company of many of those who you have to know (or else you're profoundly ignorant about this forum) disagree strongly with you

Sorry I missed this. You know Dom it doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with this, because regardless of what you think of my tone, nothing you say is going to change my posting style. So since you will never be in a position to censor me, that gives you two choices. You can argue endlessly to no avail, or you can simply ignore what I have to say. Why don't you do us all a favor and do the latter.

You see, I've stopped arguing. Now it's up to you.

Since this is the premier food discussion forum in the Midwest, one of the things I am proudest of in the guide is the coverage of restaurants that are serving modern Midwestern cuisine. The reviews of Revolver in Findlay, Ohio, June in Peoria, Sanford in Milwaukee, Heartland in Minneapolis and Justus Drugstore in Smithville, Missouri are among the reviews that I enjoyed writing the most. Unfortunately Chicago is lagging behind some of the other cities in terms of places that serve that style of cuisine, although I guess North Pond is the best example of that style of cooking in the city. I think that over the next decade, there will be farm to table restaurants popping up all over the region. In my opinion it's one of the most exciting developments in American cuisine.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:modern Midwestern cuisine ... Unfortunately Chicago is lagging behind some of the other cities in terms of places that serve that style of cuisine

But, of course, you don't want to start an argument (er ... discussion).

Our attention was waning so Mr. P had to stir the pot a bit or we might go off to discuss something other than his book and his oh so good taste.

Steve Plotnicki wrote: Unfortunately Chicago is lagging behind some of the other cities in terms of places that serve that style of cuisine, although I guess North Pond is the best example of that style of cooking in the city. I think that over the next decade, there will be farm to table restaurants popping up all over the region. In my opinion it's one of the most exciting developments in American cuisine.

HI,

You think farm to table restaurants are Modern Midwest Cuisine? I just googled and did not come up this phrase at least on the first page. I will have to think about this one and test it out on some Midwesterners.

Regards,

Now why on earth would that be a controversial statement?

Cathy - I am talking about those restaurants in particular. For example, L'Etoile in Madison, Wisconsin is a farm to table restaurant, but I wouldn't describe their cuisine that way. It's more Chez Panisse than modern Midwest. Blackbird in Chicago is more Gramercy Tavern than what I am describing. What sets the restaurants I named apart is a unique mix of rusticity, reliance on local ethnic cuisines in many instances, and extremely modern culinary technique, all juxtaposed on a farm to table cuisine. Bruce Sherman is the only chef in Chicago who cooks in that style (at least that I know of.) As for the phrase, I thought I made it up but they use it on the Revolver website http://www.revolverrestaurant.net

Our attention was waning so Mr. P had to stir the pot a bit or we might go off to discuss something other than his book and his oh so good taste.

Thanks for noticing my good taste!

Steve Plotnicki wrote:I'm Jewish so I surrounded myself with investment bankers, accountants, economists and statisticians

Oy. A shanda fur die goyim, yet.

Steve Plotnicki wrote:I'm Jewish so I surrounded myself with investment bankers, accountants, economists and statisticians who oddly enough agree with me about what the statistics mean.

You've got to be kidding me - are you for real? Are you completely unaware of how offensive this remark is? I'm not sure what parts of the 20th and 21st centuries you've missed, but you really need to keep your views to yourself - they're incredibly offensive and I'm embarrassed for you.

TomInSkokie wrote:#2 = Gene & Georgetti?

Before we knew that it was The Pump Room, this was my immediate guess as well. But then I realized it couldn't be right, because the quote refers to low-level political operatives, and at G&G, you see high-level political operatives. Over the years I've spied Ed Vrdolyak, George Dunne, Jesse White. Let's at least give it that much.

When the fixtures at The Pump Room went up for auction, I sat in Frank Sinatra's booth, and perhaps got some of his DNA on my pants. If only I could remember now which pants.

Interesting discussion. Independent of any of her points, I found the writing of the Minneapolis paper sorely lacking. Keep this debate going and the value of LTH will go sky high.

To those who don't know Steve, I think we can say he uses a bit of hyperbole sometimes to make a point; I wouldn't get too worked up over statements you might otherwise find offensive. We've also got a bit of a culture clash going on--East Coast versus Midwest style.