Gypsy Boy wrote:]
Um, yikes. I think you forgot the smiley emoticon....

So did Thomas Paine in "A Modest Proposal."

Pie Lady wrote:Either you don't know the meaning of literal, or your parents are no better than mine

I know exactly the meaning of literal, and the word I chose is exactly the word I meant. Am I being whooshed, or is it not clear that what I wrote was a bit of fun parody of this self-same thread? Otherwise, I'd be quite the hypocrite, wouldn't I? I may be a hypocrite, but I try not to be that obvious about it.

At the Oak Park He-Man Woman-Haters* chapter meeting last night, Dr. Don and I were talking about hamburgers and drunkeness, and how WC does seem to appeal to the hammered. I know the practice but I guess I don't get why, when you're already over the edge, you want to tax your system with big fistfuls of pink slime sashimi. If anything, the grease should go in before the alcohol rather than after.

That said, whenever I travel outside the country, on the way home, seems there's nothing like a burger to stabilize the system. It just feels right.

*really has nothing to do with hating anyone or anything, except maybe WC.

David Hammond wrote:At the Oak Park He-Man Woman-Haters* chapter meeting last night, Dr. Don and I were talking about hamburgers and drunkeness, and how WC does seem to appeal to the hammered. I know the practice but I guess I don't get why, when you're already over the edge, you want to tax your system with big fistfuls of pink slime sashimi. If anything, the grease should go in before the alcohol rather than after.

I thought that too, but apparently after is the way to go. Hearty solids first, grease after. Although the grease often makes you puke, but then the hangover dissipates more quickly. There's a medical dissertation in there somewhere.

Pie Lady wrote:
I have to admit, though I abhor White Castle, I was surprised to find I liked this:
http://www.whitecastle.com/food/recipes ... castlerole
Get out your mixing bowls, Mr. Hammond! The LTH picnic is right around the corner.

I've made White Castle stuffing for Thanksgiving for a few years (in addition to a more traditional stuffing), and that bowl is bare within minutes.

I admit, I get a craving about once a year for White Castle. Get a few of them. Eater's remorse pretty soon after.

Those chicken ring things are an abomination of nature, too. Something about the ring shape. Probably tastes the same as any other nugget, and a nugget isn't exactly a natural shape. Reminds me of that green ketchup they used to sell. I'm sure it tasted the same, but there was something inherently sinister about it and I just couldn't eat it when my mother-in-law bought it.

Yeah, those chicken rings are weird. Never tried 'em, though. Going to a White Castle for chicken rings is like going to Wrigley to witness a dazzling display of hometown athleticism.

I assume chicken rings come from the muscles surrounding the spine.

abe_froeman wrote:Those chicken ring things are an abomination of nature, too. Something about the ring shape. Probably tastes the same as any other nugget, and a nugget isn't exactly a natural shape.

I once ordered the chicken rings out of morbid curiosity - they were actually pretty inoffensive. If I recall correctly, they were actual rings of white meat chicken, like someone pounded chicken breasts flat and punched rings out of them. I found them to be no worse than any of the all-white-meat chicken nuggets, tenders, and fingers that are pulled out of freezers & tossed into deep fryers at thousands of fast food outlets, bars, and burger/dog joints everyday.

I think people just act extra appalled by chicken rings because, while it's totally normal for McDonald's to grind the ever-loving snot out of chicken breasts and then having the resulting goo molded into guitar, oval, and boot shapes, it's apparently inconceivable and disgusting for White Castle to flatten chicken breasts & punch donut shapes out of them.

So what's the verdict on Krystal burgers?

JimInLoganSquare wrote:Indianapolis was one of the first outposts of the White Castle empire after it expanded from its Wichita origns. Point of fact, my dad ate them as a kid in Indianapolis in the 1930s. (A digression: My dad's memory was that back then, they were more like a real hamburger than the strange little spatula cozies of today). I thought it was odd that he might praise the things, because my first go-around with them was anything but enjoyable; tasted like steamed meatloaf, actually, and not very good meatloaf at that.

I think your father's memories are generally correct. Major changes took place in the White Castle System during the 1940s. Meat became hard to get during wartime and the quality plummeted. Partly to conserve precious meat, White Castle introduced the no-flip method, still used today, to avoid loss due to breakage when patties are turned over. At the end of the decade the five holes were added to speed up cooking (and use less meat). Also the switch to dehydrated onions (due to rationing) occurred during the '40s. All these changes were retained in the 1950s and beyond and still contribute to the distinctive taste of the sliders we know (and love?) today.

I suspect the hamburgers currently served at Powers are fairly similar to Depression-era White Castle sliders (I haven't seen any detailed photographs of the burgers themselves from this period however). In any case, the burgers at Powers are formed into hole-less patties on the griddle, cooked with plenty of freshly sliced onions and get flipped during cooking. At Powers, as at the original White Castles, condiments are added by the customer. These days at White Castle, "everything" seems to include a squirt of premixed ketchup and mustard.

Powers Hamburgers, Fort Wayne, 2010


White Castle, Chicago, 2011

Khaopaat wrote:If I recall correctly, they were actual rings of white meat chicken, like someone pounded chicken breasts flat and punched rings out of them.

If that's true, I want a dozen chicken holes.

David Hammond wrote:I think it's possible that over-exposure to bad things (WC, for instance) can actually make one think they like these things when, in fact, if their senses were recalibrated and cleansed, they would realize that what they were consuming was, indeed, bad.

David, this is the most troubling thing I've ever seen you say. Trotting out this 1890's (or is it 1930's?) view of mankind's supposedly related affinities and afflictions, or whatever the hell, in this venue is like walking into a bar and smashing all the gin bottles. I'll not be cleansed, recalibrated, rectified, reprogrammed, reminded or reprimanded. I won't like strawberries after the revolution and I won't eat anywhere in Oak Park now that I've seen this, since any information I have on that "republic's" food scene comes from you and I can't be sure it's not all been an ideological trap.

White Castle is garbage, though. But if you think a slider's bad, you should take your better angels down to the South for a Krystal. Garbage's garbage. White Castle's inbred chaw-chewing, tweaking cuzzin.

JeffB wrote:

David Hammond wrote:I think it's possible that over-exposure to bad things (WC, for instance) can actually make one think they like these things when, in fact, if their senses were recalibrated and cleansed, they would realize that what they were consuming was, indeed, bad.

David, this is the most troubling thing I've ever seen you say. Trotting out this 1890's (or is it 1930's?) view of mankind's supposedly related affinities and afflictions, or whatever the hell, in this venue is like walking into a bar and smashing all the gin bottles. I'll not be cleansed, recalibrated, rectified, reprogrammed, reminded or reprimanded. I won't like strawberries after the revolution and I won't eat anywhere in Oak Park now that I've seen this, since any information I have on that "republic's" food scene comes from you and I can't be sure it's not all been an ideological trap.

In early 80s, I'd regularly eat Big Macs. I liked them, I thought. Then, for some reason, The Wife and I went vegetarian for a summer. We ate fresh stuff all the time, beans, tofu, practically vegan. I became very sensitive to food and found, one day, that just driving by a McDonald's became a revolting experience for me: the smell of ammonia and hot grease was so intense.

I got over it, and within about six years was working for McDonald's, but my point is: one can, through repetition, become accustomed to bad-tasting stuff to such an extent that you actually come to believe you like the stuff.

Binko wrote:

Gypsy Boy wrote:]
Um, yikes. I think you forgot the smiley emoticon....

So did Thomas Paine in "A Modest Proposal."

I guess to be pedantic, it was Jonathan Swift.

I have no idea how I mixed up the two. Good catch. I should just return my English lit degree.

"I want to keep fighting because it is the only thing that keeps me out of the hamburger joints. If I don't fight, I'll eat this planet."

- Mahatma Gandhi (1919-1972)

JeffB wrote:White Castle is garbage, though. But if you think a slider's bad, you should take your better angels down to the South for a Krystal. Garbage's garbage. White Castle's inbred chaw-chewing, tweaking cuzzin.

Around 1970, Krystal Burgers' slogan was "Get the Krazy Krystal habit!". I think they were totally oblivious to the druggy double entendre, though I don't know how. The choice of slogans was especially strange given that the location of Krystal's stores was in a part of the country notorious for methamphetamine abuse. It was right around the time when McDonald's had to change the design of their coffee stirrers because they found out that the little spoons were not only handy for snorting drugs, but had actually become a standard of measure in the illicit drug world? Maybe Krystal was tring to claim some of McDonald's market share. That said, I always thought Krystal was a step up from White Castle (although just a baby step).

d4v3 wrote:[ the location of Krystal's stores was in a part of the country notorious for methamphetamine abuse. . . . That said, I always thought Krystal was a step up from White Castle (although just a baby step).

Not only a part of the country notorious for meth, but the parts of that part of the country. I've never stooped so low in my human existence as in the moments I found myself in Krystal parking lots situated in the lesser districts of Tampa, Gainesville and Atlanta. They tended not to be in the nicer parts of town. True of Krispy Kreme (note the K's) back then too.

And that baby step up you perceived was just cheap mustard.

Hard to believe that Krystal is so bad and Waffle House so good, serving the same people in the same neighborhoods very different food in the wee hours.

JeffB wrote:Hard to believe that Krystal is so bad and Waffle House so good, serving the same people in the same neighborhoods very different food in the wee hours.

Waffle House is no sure bet, either. I've had some terrible meals in Waffle Houses. One in particular in the Tampa area. I guess it all depends on the chef; something that can't be claimed by WC or Krystal.

Wait, Waffle House is good now? Am I living in some sort of alternate universe? (That said, it is said that they are highly variable, so I withhold judgment. The ones I've been to have invariably been dirty, nasty places, with cooks who have no concept of doneness when it comes to eggs, always way overcooking my "over easy" eggs. Perhaps it is my fault for not ordering the waffles, which I would assume is their specialty. But I don't like waffles.)

Hi,

I like Waffle House.

Until Steve Z suggested asking for the hashbrowns crisp, this solved my variability issue with them.

The car always wants to stop upon seeing one of my various trips. Don't always go, though it is very tempting.

I also adore the other Waffle House of America in Michigan with the exceptional toilets!

Regards,

I feel it is my duty to link to this.

wjb302 wrote:I feel it is my duty to link to this.

Holy crap is that nauseating

Binko wrote:So what's the verdict on Krystal burgers?

We live near Macon, so we do venture into Krystal's, especially when travelling. Their sliders are somewhat larger than WC, but I dislike the size of the bun...too much bread. My wife likes the chili pups at Krystal; mini-dogs with passable chili.

As for WC, I've been eating them for over 50 years. Growing up in NW Indiana the closest location was about 10 miles away in Hammond. My mom would gather up a few 10 for a dollar coupons from the local paper and each of us 3 kids got our coupon and a dollar bill. We piled in the car and drove to Hammond. After the half-hour trek back home, with the heady aroma of WCs wafting through the family sedan, mom popped the sliders into the oven for a reheating. I will always remember my dad sitting at the dining room table with his stack of WC boxes and a quart of PBR. After polishing off his sliders there was the refreshing palate cleanser of a Chesterfield regular, lit with a kitchen match.

wjb302 wrote:I feel it is my duty to link to this.

FWIW: some young men making "lasagna" from layers of various fast food chains' burgers, multiple pounds of bacon, a Jack Daniels tomato sauce (nauseating enough on its own), Big Mac Sauce, and onion rings. The video ends with the opportunity to watch four of them eat their creation.

Wow miss a couple days, miss alot. I'm not going to lie, I'll eat WC now and then and thats most likely bc I loved it when young. My uncle used to load us up with sliders when we went into Cubs games, they'd never check kids for sneaking in food. I'll say one thing, when you get a bad slider i.e one that's not fully steamed, they're disgusting. But hey sometimes I crave the Castle, its rare nowadays but still there sometimes and I don't give two hoots what anyone thinks about me for it, good or bad. Thats the beauty of a food/sports/music and so on forum, they're for people to discuss/agree/disagree said things on, good or bad. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to go over to Twitter and read what the "too cool, too good to post their thoughts about LTH on LTH" crew has to say. Ha. Holladay.

This thread, and the debacle with [member whose name I forget] talking about the superior purity of French cuisine vs. Asian cuisines have really made me want to start an LTHForum aesthetics reading group, where we start, say, with Hume's "The Standard of Taste" and work our way through other attempts to argue about whether aesthetic judgments about food are based on mere preference, a feeling of pleasure accessible to all (and the standard for judging truly about a dish's aesthetic value), or a result of features of the food itself independent of what people think or feel about it. I just can't make up my mind about what to think.

I resist our culture's relativistic proclivities, so part of me feels like there has to be some truth in what David Hammond is saying, but I also don't think there's one timeless truth about which food is good and which isn't. But the important claim, I think, is that you can make judgments about food from two points of view -- one that takes into account your individual tastes, associations, preferences, memories, habits, etc., and another that means to speak 'for everyone' -- I mean, I find myself doing that with music: I'll agree that the Rolling Stones make good music when speaking 'for everyone,' but I personally don't like them and think their songs are uninteresting from a musical point of view and only interesting in terms of their position in the history of blues, rnb and rock n roll. But then, I also think video game music is awesome -- and in large part because of nostalgic associations to the sounds. So in that respect, I can relate to the distinction that Hammond is trying to draw. But what I don't know is whether there is something consistent and plausible to be said for the idea that there is a standard for telling whether someone is right in claiming 'for everyone' that a certain food is just bad. I want to say 'yes,' but I don't know how to show it!

little500 wrote:After polishing off his sliders there was the refreshing palate cleanser of a Chesterfield regular, lit with a kitchen match.

Did he strike it against the sole of his shoes? My Grandfather did that, which always impressed me. No fussy matchbooks for him, he used his shoes!

Regards,

i<3pizza wrote:But the important claim, I think, is that you can make judgments about food from two points of view -- one that takes into account your individual tastes, associations, preferences, memories, habits, etc., and another that means to speak 'for everyone'

Very interesting and astute observation. Such is the dilemma of the GNR committee when making decisions about the GNR-worthiness of a particular restaurant. I sometimes find my personal tastes to be at odds with what I see as the board's consensus opinion.

Cathy2 wrote:

little500 wrote:After polishing off his sliders there was the refreshing palate cleanser of a Chesterfield regular, lit with a kitchen match.

Did he strike it against the sole of his shoes? My Grandfather did that, which always impressed me. No fussy matchbooks for him, he used his shoes!

Regards,

Who needs a shoe when you have a thumbnail.