Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I believe you. I don't think that's disputed.

 

This particular wrong turning started with:

 

And yet people refer to chefs as Chef Whatever in writing very frequently

[LML]Only twats.[/LML]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 655
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, pull the other one. Attributing to people the aim of maintaining their high status vis-a-vis the hoi polloi is not a neutral hypothesis. It's an arbitrary imputation of motives, and a negative one too. Your other point has no traction; one isn't asserting the "propriety" of calling someone "doctor" when one calls a doctor "doctor" (except in an empty formal sense) - one is just calling someone "doctor". Again, there's an assumption that calling a chef "chef" must have an ulterior aim.

 

I agree with Wilf. I have no doubt that some folks use titles to suck up or otherwise seem as an insider, but starting from an assumption that this is always the case and the only motivations, especially when several of us openly said that we call chefs "Chef"... well, you'll all just have to understand that I may not agree with this and may actually take offense (mild, but...) . Of course, I really know that those aren't really Mongo's feelings about me (I know you like me...don't you? Do you really think I'm a twat? Well, maybe you shouldn't answer that). And, having the NYC social life that I have thru MF puts me into many restaurants with other members, enough to doubt that you've hit their motivations on the head either.

 

Bottom line is that, all respected opinions to the contrary (and some non-respected ones too), I call chefs whom I dont know "Chef" because I feel comfortable doing so. I feel comfortable doing so not because I'm a suck up or a twat or want free food/drinks or high status. That I'm pretty sure of. Especially since I call plenty of Doctors by their first names daily and get no free meds. And I never say "ma'am". And I can suck up in other ways when I really want free food (see my signature line?) Of course, being comfortable or not probably has something to do with my childhood or ... well, maybe I should find a therapist for this part. Point made?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am concerned that on the basis of writing Chef X or whatever somewhere that it would be assumed that I'd say, "Chef" in addressing a chef in conversation. I've never done so and I've never heard G address the chef as 'chef'.

 

Many people subscribe to the Dale Carnegie school of thought and make the assumption that using an honorific or a name is important. Where I would say "what's the prognosis?", they would acknowledge the other person using "Doctor, what's the prognosis?" (or "Chef, what's the prognosis?")

 

I think this discussion should really take place in Japanese. They've spent hundreds of years and trillions of yens on this stuff.

 

In the case of farmers, the old name hyakushō (百姓, hyakushō?), literally "one hundred surnames", is now considered offensive (see kotobagari), and farmers are referred to, and refer to themselves as, nōka (農家, nōka?), or "farming experts".
Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't we talking about talking to a chef to his/her face? And addressing them 'chef'? I thought that was the whole point of the discussion.

That's where we were, but when I asserted that the title was commonly used in writing, that too was denied - or rather, it was implied that only twats used it in writing.

 

(Inexplicable, I know, but this is the internet.)

 

not by me. maybe i missed where this denial took place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, pull the other one. Attributing to people the aim of maintaining their high status vis-a-vis the hoi polloi is not a neutral hypothesis. It's an arbitrary imputation of motives, and a negative one too. Your other point has no traction; one isn't asserting the "propriety" of calling someone "doctor" when one calls a doctor "doctor" (except in an empty formal sense) - one is just calling someone "doctor". Again, there's an assumption that calling a chef "chef" must have an ulterior aim.

 

I agree with Wilf. I have no doubt that some folks use titles to suck up or otherwise seem as an insider, but starting from an assumption that this is always the case and the only motivations, especially when several of us openly said that we call chefs "Chef"... well, you'll all just have to understand that I may not agree with this and may actually take offense (mild, but...) . Of course, I really know that those aren't really Mongo's feelings about me (I know you like me...don't you? Do you really think I'm a twat? Well, maybe you shouldn't answer that). And, having the NYC social life that I have thru MF puts me into many restaurants with other members, enough to doubt that you've hit their motivations on the head either.

 

Bottom line is that, all respected opinions to the contrary (and some non-respected ones too), I call chefs whom I dont know "Chef" because I feel comfortable doing so. I feel comfortable doing so not because I'm a suck up or a twat or want free food/drinks or high status. That I'm pretty sure of. Especially since I call plenty of Doctors by their first names daily and get no free meds. And I never say "ma'am". And I can suck up in other ways when I really want free food (see my signature line?) Of course, being comfortable or not probably has something to do with my childhood or ... well, maybe I should find a therapist for this part. Point made?

 

having come out of class (last one for the term!), let me clarify: i don't believe and have not intended to say that all who address chefs as "chef" do so for the same reasons. the class narratives i've advanced probably apply less to some than to others, and to some probably not at all. and even to those to whom they apply a lot they're not the only things in play.

 

but can we agree that lex is a twat?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quoted in post 601 above, Mongo. I know the [LML] tag indicates humor, but the conversation then proceeded as if people were prepared to defend the point seriously.

 

oh okay, i thought you were referring to an older part of the conversation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quoted in post 601 above, Mongo. I know the [LML] tag indicates humor, but the conversation then proceeded as if people were prepared to defend the point seriously.

Tracking the logic of threads like these is a lot like tracking the movement of the queen of spades while playing 3 card monte. The game is fixed - you can't win in any conventional sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nothing personal, lex. i'm just persuaded by the anti-brooklyn pm's that have been flying behind the scenes.

Come to New York this summer. Sneak and Seth and Lovelynugget and I can give you a tour and demonstrate the meaning behind the old aphorism - "Brooklyn - where the weak are killed and eaten."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...