jaybo wrote:However, that would have given him the distinction of being the first Quickfire winner in TC history to be eliminated in the same episode.

True, but I think this is less noteworthy than it seems on first blush. Since there isn't a lack of immunity until late in the season, and the later finals stages frequently have no quickfire, I believe there have been fewer than ten chances over the run of the show for somebody to win the quickfire and lose the elimination. Plus, once immunity is gone, there's usually some substantial advantage conferred to the winner, making it even harder for a quickfire winner to lose the elimination.

jaybo wrote:So next week, it's Restaurant Wars as it was in its original incarnation of 3 on 3. Richard, Stephanie and Antonia vs. Spike, Lisa and Dale.

I think you're probably right, but that's working under the assumption that they're seated with their teammates in the stew room (this is from the website preview for next week, for those who are curious). And I wouldn't read ANYTHING into the cuts back and forth between judges table and the grilled contestants. Those have been notoriously misleading throughout the entire season. They've been chock full of out-of-context reaction shots, edits to create exchanges that never happened, numerous red herrings, etc. etc. But the editors have shown a penchant for making their dramatic setups in the course of the show itself a little transparent at times, so I'm with you -- I'm concerned about Dale, who I'd like to see in the finals.

It's no mystery that there's probably a big out-of-turn elimination coming. Besides the fact that it's just unlikely the top four would actually be the four in the finals (if it is, indeed, a four person finals) I believe Lee Anne obliquely alluded to it a couple of weeks ago.

brandon_w wrote:jaybo --- that's a lot of information about next week, did you get that all from the previews?

Yep.

Dmnkly wrote:

jaybo wrote:So next week, it's Restaurant Wars as it was in its original incarnation of 3 on 3. Richard, Stephanie and Antonia vs. Spike, Lisa and Dale.

I think you're probably right, but that's working under the assumption that they're seated with their teammates in the stew room (this is from the website preview for next week, for those who are curious). And I wouldn't read ANYTHING into the cuts back and forth between judges table and the grilled contestants. Those have been notoriously misleading throughout the entire season. They've been chock full of out-of-context reaction shots, edits to create exchanges that never happened, numerous red herrings, etc. etc. But the editors have shown a penchant for making their dramatic setups in the course of the show itself a little transparent at times, so I'm with you -- I'm concerned about Dale, who I'd like to see in the finals.

It's no mystery that there's probably a big out-of-turn elimination coming. Besides the fact that it's just unlikely the top four would actually be the four in the finals (if it is, indeed, a four person finals) I believe Lee Anne obliquely alluded to it a couple of weeks ago.

I'm not positive, but I believe that when the cheftestants are split into two groups, they're seated by group in the stew room at the beginning. After everyone comes back from the first meeting at judges' table, then they're free to sit wherever. Even if that weren't the case, it's not hard to deduce that those are in fact the teams.

You're absolutely correct about the editing. Often, they make it appear as if one person is looking at or interacting with someone who, it turns out, is not even in the room when certain statements are made.

Given that there are four episodes left, I think they'll format it like last season. Four cheftestants will make it to the finale in Puerto Rico (why Puerto Rico?!), where one will be eliminated in the first part of the finale (a la Brian last season), and the other three will battle it out in the actual final challenge.

dmnkly, the top four would be in the finale if they wanted them to be. However, they're not about to let it play out that way. Most everyone would agree that Richard and Dale would be in the top four based on ability. NO WAY they're both going to the finale. They're determined to have two females in the finale. I predicted Dale going to the finale with Richard being eliminated early, and I have to stand by that, because I just can't see Richard losing in the finale (Spike going to the finale just seems too unlikely to me.).

Right now, I'm rooting for ABL (Anyone But Lisa).

jaybo wrote:dmnkly, the top four would be in the finale if they wanted them to be. However, they're not about to let it play out that way. Most everyone would agree that Richard and Dale would be in the top four based on ability. NO WAY they're both going to the finale. They're determined to have two females in the finale. I predicted Dale going to the finale with Richard being eliminated early, and I have to stand by that, because I just can't see Richard losing in the finale (Spike going to the finale just seems too unlikely to me.).

Well, we've been over this ground before, so I probably shouldn't rehash it. I'll simply say the reason the top four generally aren't in the finals (as if there's universal agreement on who those people are) is for the same reason an all #1 seeds Final Four never (well, almost never) happens. It isn't because the outcome of the NCAA tournament is predetermined. It's because the odds of ANY specific combination of contestants making the finals is highly unlikely. And you can believe there are a lot of women at the end because the producers are pulling the strings and all of the regular judges (to say nothing of the well-respected guest judges who have been on the show and said the same) are all bald-faced liars, or you can consider the far more plausible, innocuous and less dangerous for the show explanation that the people doing the casting were simply extra careful to select a number of strong female contestants this season. Or, you can consider that people have been saying the producers want a woman to win since season two, and that just because a woman is going to win eventually, that doesn't demonstrate that the show is a sham when it finally happens.

Though I think there's a very good chance either Dale or Richard will screw up before the finals (again, just playing the odds), IF they both make it, or if a woman doesn't win, can we put the conspiracy theories to bed, or will there then be another explanation as to how this new result was, in fact, what the producers really wanted all along?

dmnkly, you, I, or anyone else can spin things to suit our own agenda. I'll admit I'm guilty of it. I may be a little overboard in some of the things I say, but I'll stand by my statements.

Are you telling me that the judging is completely on the up-and-up? If you are, then we'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't believe it and probably will never believe it.

I think that past performance is taken into account, and that, unless there is a clear-cut choice (e.g. Nikki last week), certain chefs are in deep trouble if the choice is close depending on circumstances (e.g. Andrew this week). Let me clarify that last part. In this week's elimination, all three on the bottom were pretty bad. Lisa's dish was not definitively worse than the others. It may or may not have been the worst, but since it wasn't the worst by a large margin, she was in no actual danger of elimination.

It isn't a case of the cheftestants being aware of the dynamic, but the show runners are.

Is it a coincidence that the male/female ratio has been basically 50/50, while the other seasons have been male-dominant?

If two females aren't in the final challenge, I'll be more than willing to admit that I was wrong. Period.

jaybo wrote:dmnkly, you, I, or anyone else can spin things to suit our own agenda. I'll admit I'm guilty of it. I may be a little overboard in some of the things I say, but I'll stand by my statements.

Are you telling me that the judging is completely on the up-and-up? If you are, then we'll have to agree to disagree, because I don't believe it and probably will never believe it.

I think that past performance is taken into account, and that, unless there is a clear-cut choice (e.g. Nikki last week), certain chefs are in deep trouble if the choice is close depending on circumstances (e.g. Andrew this week). Let me clarify that last part. In this week's elimination, all three on the bottom were pretty bad. Lisa's dish was not definitively worse than the others. It may or may not have been the worst, but since it wasn't the worst by a large margin, she was in no actual danger of elimination.

I agree that the judges do let past performance and their general sense of who they think deserves to advance color their close calls. But I don't think there's anything nefarious about that at all. I think it's good that they let those kinds of things nudge them on very close calls. And, incidentally, they've said as much in the blogs. But I don't believe they're making their decisions based on what field they believe will make for the "best television", and I don't believe the producers are standing over their shoulders whispering who they'd like to see stay and go. In the example you mention, you say Lisa was obviously safe because they're trying to protect the women from elimination, but why is it so hard to believe that Andrew's dish was simply the worst of the three? (To say nothing of the parameters of the challenge he ignored) This is the maddening thing about conspiracy theories. They willfully ignore perfectly plausible, simple and far more likely explanations in favor of unlikely, elaborate, unprovable ones. You and I both were sure Andrew was a goner before they announced it. But I was sure he was a goner because his dish looked like a terrible dish to me, it completely broke one of the challenge's rules and it addressed some of the challenge's other parameters very poorly. Why is that explanation ignored in favor of a nefarious producers' plot to rig the contest to maintain gender balance?

jaybo wrote:Is it a coincidence that the male/female ratio has been basically 50/50, while the other seasons have been male-dominant?

Yup. In fact, statistically speaking, if they went four or five seasons without having a season that stayed very balanced, that would be more striking. It's like flipping a coin 100 times. It isn't strange to get a streak of seven heads. What's strange is if you don't get a streak of seven heads at some point (the exact numbers may be off there, but you take my point). But I'd happily accept the possibility (and I'd even say it's probable) that the producers wanted to keep it balanced, and so through the casting made sure that they had a good gender mix from the top to the bottom of their talent spectrum. A couple of great guys and great women, a few middling guys and middling women, and a couple of weak guys and weak women. It's one thing to cast with that in mind, and a lot of this stuff can be achieved with careful casting. It's another thing entirely to fix the contest once it's underway.

jaybo wrote:If two females aren't in the final challenge, I'll be more than willing to admit that I was wrong. Period.

Glad to hear it. FWIW, I agree that there will probably be two women in the finals. But assuming it happens, I believe it'll be because they cast a few very strong women this season. Not because they're sitting over Tom's shoulder and saying, "Nuh-uh... the guy goes."

I wasn't sure Andrew was a goner - I thought Spike was in trouble, as well. I just felt that Lisa was safe unless her dish was clearly the worst, and it wasn't. Andrew's dish may have been the worst; I said I thought he was headed for the bottom when he said what he was going to make.

You agree that past performance is a factor. Can you at least grant me that this could POSSIBLY be a factor as well?

Cooking is a male-dominated industry. I don't pretend to know the exact statistics. To me, the heads/tails analogy isn't valid because the outcomes are not statistically equal. The previous seasons aren't the statistical aberration, THIS ONE IS.

I'm not trying to say that Andrew was gone no matter what. They weren't going to eliminate him if he had made a great dish. It's not about any chef specifically. Lisa wasn't an obvious choice, so either Andrew or Spike were toast. (Andrew leaving does work out remarkably well for next week, though.) I will say that if any of the guys were up for elimination against two females and there isn't a CLEAR CUT CHOICE, then the guy is gone.

For instance, if Richard's team loses the Restaurant Wars next week and Stephanie and Antonia don't make any egregious errors, then he's out.

jaybo wrote:You agree that past performance is a factor. Can you at least grant me that this could POSSIBLY be a factor as well?

Sure it's possible. The whole thing could be scripted. The point is that to reach that conclusion, you have to believe that:

A) The producers are willing to risk completely destroying a hit show if word ever got out.
B) All of the judges who have said in no uncertain terms that the producers have never influenced their decisions are complete and total liars, including both recently added judges (Ted Allen) and some guest judges who were present for controversial eliminations (Paul Kahan being one).
C) Their casting team and editors are so incompetent at creating drama that they have to resort to fixing results to keep the show interesting.

What I'm saying is that it makes no sense to presume this when there is a far simpler, perfectly straightforward scenario that doesn't involve a big cover-up. And if you're hell-bent on looking for conspiracy, you're going to find it no matter what the reality of the situation is.

jaybo wrote:Cooking is a male-dominated industry. I don't pretend to know the exact statistics. To me, the heads/tails analogy isn't valid because the outcomes are not statistically equal. The previous seasons aren't the statistical aberration, THIS ONE IS.

But that's the point -- there are ALWAYS statistical abberations in ANY system. If they do the show long enough, there will be two finalists with the exact same initials at some point. That doesn't mean it was by design. Heck, if they do the show long enough, at some point there will be a finals that's ALL women. That doesn't mean the fix is in. And if you believe the producers would like for more women to go deep in the show, why do you automatically assume that they're doing so by taking the incredibly risky route of fixing the contest rather than simply taking extra care to cast great female chefs? Not to mention which, let's examine the gender breakdown in the finals:

Season 1: Two men, one woman
Season 2: Three men, one woman
Season 3: Two men, one woman
Season 4: Two men, two women (hypothesized)

So what you're essentially saying is that either the gender flip of a single individual or the addition of one woman to the finals over four seasons would be evidence of a fixed contest. Also, consider the gender breakdown at this point in previous seasons:

Season 1: Four men, two women
Season 2: Five men, one woman
Season 3: Four men, two women

So, yes, there's all of this talk about how this many women have made it this far. But "this many women" is one more woman -- JUST ONE -- than there was at the same point in seasons 1 and 3. And this is the evidence that they're fixing the show? Also note that in seasons 2 and 3, they didn't start with an even M/F split. The women were down to begin with.

And what of this suggestion that this season was the aberration? Here are the number of episodes where the gender breakdown was either even or within one of being even for each season:

Season 1: 10/11
Season 2: 1/13
Season 3: 2/13
Season 4: 9/10

So they fixed season one, didn't fix season seasons two and three, then fixed season four? The "aberration" you speak of (nevermind that we're talking a sample size of four here) has taken place precisely 50% of the time. We've had two seasons where the gender split was almost exactly equal for the entire season, and two seasons where the men got way ahead.

Point being, no this is not the weird statistical abberration you seem to think it is.

jaybo wrote:I'm not trying to say that Andrew was gone no matter what. They weren't going to eliminate him if he had made a great dish. It's not about any chef specifically. Lisa wasn't an obvious choice, so either Andrew or Spike were toast. (Andrew leaving does work out remarkably well for next week, though.) I will say that if any of the guys were up for elimination against two females and there isn't a CLEAR CUT CHOICE, then the guy is gone.

For instance, if Richard's team loses the Restaurant Wars next week and Stephanie and Antonia don't make any egregious errors, then he's out.

So if you're suggesting that men are selectively being eliminated over women on close calls, let's look at this season. Throwing out the weeks where the chopping block has been exclusively one gender, there have been seven eliminations where the judges could have eliminated a male or a female:

Nimma, Episode 1: Ryan blew the piccata and embarrassed himself, and Erik made that godawful mashed potato souffle. Was Nimma so obvious that they couldn't have eliminated Ryan or Erik instead? Gotta call this one close.

Erik, Episode 3: Soggy corn dogs vs. bad Waldorf vs. crappy pasta salad. Close.

Manuel, Episode 4: It seemed quite clear that the summer roll was a much worse dish than the rack of lamb, meaning that though four were on the block, the only two up for elimination were Manuel and Spike. So there wasn't really a gender split on the final decision.

Zoi, Episode 5: The salmon scales vs. underseasoned carpaccio episode. That sure as hell wasn't clear cut. In fact, many people seemed to think the judges were sparing Richard there. And if you say, okay, well, the carpaccio was the worst dish, they had to eliminate somebody from that team -- why not Spike? Close.

Ryan, Episode 6: The grill-off. Messy, blah chicken skewers vs. okay but boring (and largely premade) sausage & peppers vs. crappy inappropriate upscale. Close.

Mark, Episode 8: The kids dinner. Bad curry vs. bad chicken stew vs. bland beans. Close.

Nikki, Episode 9: I thought this one was pretty clear cut, but a lot of people think it should have been Dale. I think we have to call this one close.

Andrew, Episode 10: Close.

By my count, that makes seven close calls -- three women, four men -- as close as you can get to perfectly even with an odd number of close calls. And even if you throw out Nikki's elimination, that's 4-2 in favor of the men. A small sample that's only one decision away from being perfectly even. This is obvious bias?

To sum up:

1) If two women make it to the finals, it will only be a single gender flip or the addition of one woman over previous seasons. That's what's known as precisely zero statistical significance.

2) There is only one more woman at this point in the season than there were in seasons one and three, and the women started one down in seasons two and three.

3) This "exceptional" season of gender equality has, in fact, happened before, in season one.

4) The eliminations that you suggest favor eliminating men in close calls have, in fact, eliminated men 4-3 over women -- as close to even as you can be.

Your argument is flawed, I tells ya... FLAWED!

Wow... I really need to stop now.

Fine - you win. I won't post anymore. Goodbye.

jaybo wrote:Fine - you win. I won't post anymore. Goodbye.

That's kind of a silly response. If someone disagrees with you, can either enter into a debate, which could be interesting to all, or you can ignore it and go to the next topic. But to, in effect, say "I'm taking my ball and bat home, because the umpire called a strike on me" - that's just silly.

nr706 wrote:

jaybo wrote:Fine - you win. I won't post anymore. Goodbye.

That's kind of a silly response. If someone disagrees with you, can either enter into a debate, which could be interesting to all, or you can ignore it and go to the next topic. But to, in effect, say "I'm taking my ball and bat home, because the umpire called a strike on me" - that's just silly.

In Jaybo's defense, my response was... um... kind of absurdly thorough

(I, uh... may need professional help)

nr706 wrote:

jaybo wrote:Fine - you win. I won't post anymore. Goodbye.

That's kind of a silly response. If someone disagrees with you, can either enter into a debate, which could be interesting to all, or you can ignore it and go to the next topic. But to, in effect, say "I'm taking my ball and bat home, because the umpire called a strike on me" - that's just silly.

Alright, I have to respond to this one.

I don't quite understand what the difference between ignoring it and "taking my ball and bat home" is. At least he's not left hanging waiting for a response from me.

I'd love to debate, but he's not trying to debate me, he's trying to shout me down. I agree with a lot of what he says; some things I don't agree with.

However, it's gotten to the point where I can't read his replies coherently anymore. All I see now is:

Dmnkly wrote:You're wrong.
You're wrong.
You're wrong again.
You're still wrong.
Guess what? You're wrong.

If I wanted to constantly hear that, I'd get married.

Goodbye.

jaybo wrote:I'd love to debate, but he's not trying to debate me, he's trying to shout me down. I agree with a lot of what he says; some things I don't agree with.

Now, that's not fair. I went to great (okay, ridiculous) lengths NOT to simply shout my disagreement, but rather to express it and support it with extensive hard evidence. Isn't backing up a position with hard numbers the precise antithesis of shouting somebody down?

I don't blame you for not wanting to read that, but saying that I shouted you down isn't a fair characterization at all.

jaybo wrote:If I wanted to constantly hear that, I'd get married.

Great line.

Dmnkly wrote:

jaybo wrote:I'd love to debate, but he's not trying to debate me, he's trying to shout me down. I agree with a lot of what he says; some things I don't agree with.

Now, that's not fair. I went to great (okay, ridiculous) lengths NOT to simply shout my disagreement, but rather to express it and support it with extensive hard evidence. Isn't backing up a position with hard numbers the precise antithesis of shouting somebody down?

I don't blame you for not wanting to read that, but saying that I shouted you down isn't a fair characterization at all.

In other words:

Dmnkly wrote:You're wrong.

Boys, Boys, Boys - repeat after me - its only a TV show, its only a TV show. Not worth raising the testosterone levels for a silly "reality" show.

jaybo wrote:In other words:

Dmnkly wrote:You're wrong.

Aaaah, I see.

I thought disagreeing, by definition, meant we each thought the other was wrong, but I see you have a greater grasp on the paradoxical than I do. As soon as I figure out how to simultaneously agree and disagree with you, we can continue. I'll let you know.

(Funny, it sure sounded like you were telling me I was wrong, too. Ah, well... I'm new to this, apparently.)

Dmnkly wrote:

jaybo wrote:In other words:

Dmnkly wrote:You're wrong.

Aaaah, I see.

I thought disagreeing, by definition, meant we each thought the other was wrong, but I see you have a greater grasp on the paradoxical than I do. As soon as I figure out how to simultaneously agree and disagree with you, we can continue. I'll let you know.

(Funny, it sure sounded like you were telling me I was wrong, too. Ah, well... I'm new to this, apparently.)

It was a joke. Lighten up.

Please don't respond to this for at least 12 hours, if at all. I'm getting the vibe that you're one of those people who HAS to get the last word in, no matter what. Seriously.

Goodbye.

Why am I jumping into this? I must be nuts.

Dom isn't one of those people who "has to be right." He's one of those people who actually is right a remarkable percentage of the time, because he's smart, has an analytical mind, and has a lot of information at his disposal.

Further, there is no shame in being wrong. When Dom has convinced me to consider something in a way I hadn't, I'm grateful. Maybe that's just me. Or maybe I've just listened to Frank Sinatra's great recording of "Everybody Has the Right To Be Wrong" too many times.

When you reduce all Dom's arguments to his saying "you're wrong," you're not wrong. You're right. That is what he's saying. Convincingly. But there's nothing in that that should make you feel angry.

I'm late again to the party (I usually watch Top Chef a day or two late). My two cents:

One of the things that's become most palpable and interesting to me this season is the high percentage of chefs on this show who have astoundingly unprofessional attitudes.

Perhaps it's just unflattering editing or the nature of being in a competition (I doubt it), but many of these chefs are incapable of taking criticism, inflexible, short-tempered, vindictive, and not particularly strong leaders or motivators. It's surprising to me that many of them have found success in their field.

I give a lot of credit to Stephanie and Richard for rising above this crowd of children and acting like professionals. The Dales, Lisas, and Andrews of the world make this show unpleasant for me to watch.

Best,
Michael

I tried to get out, but they keep pulling me back in!

I didn't say he has to be right; I said he has to get the last word in. (BTW, dmnkly, thank you for your restraint - I'm sure you were chomping at the bit.) I appreciate his insight. I really like his website. His passion for this subject mirrors mine, I enjoy that a lot.

No, there is no shame in being wrong. I've been wrong, been proven wrong, that's fine. Being told I'm wrong hundreds of times has worn on me (I'm not even sure if that's literal or figurative). It's gotten to the point where I feel like he's dissecting every word I write and slams me on it. I'm willing to see things from his POV, but he has been intransigent in his opinions and won't even consider my POV. When he begrudgingly grants me the minute possibility I might be right, he immediately comes back with a litany of arguments as to why I'm not.

He's gone on about things that I didn't even say, like above when you said that I said he has to be right. He misinterprets my statements (which happens) and then tears into the misinterpretation.

I'm not angry; I'm exhausted. Rather, I'm browbeaten. I feel like I'm being scolded. Did you read his response to me at 8:53 last night? I got through the first few sentences and then my eyes glazed over. I still haven't read it all the way through. I'm long winded, but he puts me to shame on that. When I wrote that all I see now in his posts is, "You're wrong. You're wrong.", etc., I wasn't being entirely facetious. Any salient points he makes are lost on me because all I see is, "You're wrong."

I no longer enjoy posting about the show because I know I'm going to get blasted whatever I say. My last few posts have been responses to others, like this one is to you. I'm sorry it's come to this, but it has.

Goodbye. (?)

Back to the merits --
Although Andrew's sushi thing actually looked good to me (how to improve on sushi from a health perspective is a different matter. My cardiologist would be thrilled if I ate mainly rice and fish, but I digress) I don't think it was effective for the challenge.

The exchange that caught me was the "three hour" exchange -- apparently it is more healthy to eat every three hours. However, as was correctly pointed out, did they really expect Chicago POs to stop every three hours for a nice healthy snack? Or do they expect them to grab a candybar?

As somebody who spent a decent amount of time with Chicago POs (I used to defend them when they were falsely accused of abusing people), I just don't think the dish was realistic for the challenge.

eatchicago wrote:One of the things that's become most palpable and interesting to me this season is the high percentage of chefs on this show who have astoundingly unprofessional attitudes.

We can probably blame Tony Bourdain for part of this -- his writings have implied that a chef as a badass, a thug, a dictator is the thing to be.
And while having command skills and management skills is critical for someone running the back of the house, and intimidation can be part of that, these people are not used to being on TV, and certainly not expecting to be taken out of context. Not a good excuse.

Andrew, for one, I think upped his professionality before being ditched. He started out as very foul-mouthed, quick to blame others and combative of criticism. I thought he was more gracious in his dismissal than most of the ones going out (although it could have been sarcasm -- hard to say).

I had decided that the food industry was not for me at age 15, because of a very demeaning attitude by a manager at a pizza shop in Northbrook. So whininess and thug-ness isn't new, but we're seeing it on TV. I'd dread working for Lisa. Dale? I think he's mostly egged on by Lisa, nobody else seems to get his goat. Spike? It's going to be a few years before he's managing anybody. Nikki? I predict a restaurant of hers will be full of folks taking advantage of her and robbing her blind -- she seemed so naive and unwilling to take control. Stephanie and Richard - consummate pros. I'd be happy to work for them.

jaybo wrote:He's gone on about things that I didn't even say, like above when you said that I said he has to be right.

Just to clarify (because it was ambiguous): When I put quotes around the phrase "has to be right" in the sentence "Dom isn't one of those people who 'has to be right'," I didn't intend those quotation marks to indicate the phrase was a direct quote from you. I knew it wasn't. I was using the quotation marks in the other sense people sometimes use them, to invoke a well-known set of words or idiom. If we were face to face and I was saying the same thing, I probably would have done the air-quotes thing with my fingers when I got to that phrase, and you would have understood I wasn't quoting you. Just take the quotation marks away from the phrase, and it'll still stand for what I meant to say.

DML wrote:Although Andrew's sushi thing actually looked good to me....

I thought it looked good, but it sounded horrible to me. Does anyone know if he cooked the parsnips in any way? I don't remember a mention of it or any shot of them cooking.

If I was offered a dish consisting of raw ground parsnips and pine nuts with raw fish, I'd have to politely decline. It sounds disgusting.

Best,
Michael

eatchicago wrote:... many of these chefs are incapable of taking criticism, inflexible, short-tempered, vindictive, ... It's surprising to me that many of them have found success in their field.

Not surprising to me. These are exactly the characteristics I saw in culinary school and still see in dozens of restaurant kitchens. They're part of the reason I don't work in restaurants, but thankfully they're also what keep me business today. Lots of people (certainly not all) who go into cooking do so because they're non-conformist rebellious types who don't think they'd fit in to corporate world, or simply don't want to. The characteristics you noted explain why they're usually right. They also explain why cooks make perfect characters for Reality TV.

Kennyz wrote:

eatchicago wrote:... many of these chefs are incapable of taking criticism, inflexible, short-tempered, vindictive, ... It's surprising to me that many of them have found success in their field.

Not surprising to me. These are exactly the characteristics I saw in culinary school and still see in dozens of restaurant kitchens.

Anyone's who worked in a large advertising agency isn't surprised either.

eatchicago wrote:

DML wrote:Although Andrew's sushi thing actually looked good to me....

I thought it looked good, but it sounded horrible to me. Does anyone know if he cooked the parsnips in any way? I don't remember a mention of it or any shot of them cooking.

If I was offered a dish consisting of raw ground parsnips and pine nuts with raw fish, I'd have to politely decline. It sounds disgusting.

Nope... totally raw.

I agree. I'd never try to say definitively without tasting, of course ("That did NOT taste good, I promse you!" ), but that just doesn't sound good to me.

One other matter -- giving credit where credit is due.

I like buffalo. It tastes good, and as pointed out, it is pretty healthy. Although I've recently discovered Tallgrass beef which I like a lot, I tend to go with buffalo for health reasons. Still, it can be a challenge to cook. It is way too easy to overcook it.

To cook buffalo in quanity took talent. This was a well deserved win.

Dmnkly wrote:

eatchicago wrote:

DML wrote:Although Andrew's sushi thing actually looked good to me....

I thought it looked good, but it sounded horrible to me. Does anyone know if he cooked the parsnips in any way? I don't remember a mention of it or any shot of them cooking.

If I was offered a dish consisting of raw ground parsnips and pine nuts with raw fish, I'd have to politely decline. It sounds disgusting.

Nope... totally raw.

Are raw parsnips really that disgestible? It sounds to me like the bit of "underdone potato" that Scrooge thought caused him to hallucinate in the beginning of A Christmas Carol.

aschie30 wrote:Are raw parsnips really that disgestible? It sounds to me like the bit of "underdone potato" that Scrooge thought caused him to hallucinate in the beginning of A Christmas Carol.

I'd suspect they're closer to raw carrots, not that that makes the dish as a whole sound substantially more appealing to me.

I suppose I could stop speculating and just pick up a parsnip at the store today. It is kind of funny that we have no idea what they taste like raw.