The Bruni Thread

[Nathan]

But it CAN be either good, very good, fair, or poor.

I don't know why there's an argument. You are basically saying what I've said all along: A deli can't gain more than 2 stars no matter how good it is. (Ditto steakhouses, it looks like.) So, the next question is: Why judge said places on a 4 star scale? It makes no sense.

 

Maybe what the NYT could do is say that acc to such and such category 2 stars are the maximum awarded--give the rating a sense of proportion. The NYT star rating is judging delis, steakhouses and whatever acc to standards (those assigned to Per Se) they can never reach. That is silly.

 

 

 

 

obviously you're concluding that Craftsteak is not a steakhouse?

I've no idea what you're on about, but Craftsteak's fish is better than its steak.

 

 

precisely

I misspoke. BLTSteak's fish was better than BLT's Fish's fish. Odd that. And that is precise.

 

again, this goes to my point.

What point? That I corrected a statement?

 

are BLT Steak and Craftsteak (which serves 70% of Craft's menu) steakhouses and therefore unworthy in your book? or are they "full restaurants"?

[Lex]

Oooh, wonderful. I wonder if Sandra Lee might be able to make a Table Streak?

With Sandy, they're all TableStreaks.

 

[yvonne johnson]

But again, the problem is, if the only restaurants you think should get reviewed are those that have a shot at four stars, then you're limiting the review system to a very tiny number of restaurants that aren't that relevant to most people.

 

You are excluding ALL mid-level dining.

 

You are excluding ALL neighborhood places.

 

That CAN'T be what the review system is for.

 

unless you believe that only very expensive restaurants should be reviewed.

No. Read my posts.

 

 

you've indicated that only restaurants with a possibility of four stars should be reviewed.

 

only very expensive restaurants can afford that level of service, decor and luxe ingredients.

 

so, yes, you do de fact believe that.

No to all three.

 

Find evidence in above, if you feel like it.

 

uh, like here:

 

http://mouthfulsfood.com/forums//index.php...st&p=887116

 

and here.

 

http://mouthfulsfood.com/forums//index.php...st&p=887125

Em, what evidence?

 

Can you point to exhibit 1 contradicting exhibit 2?

 

This is nonsense.

[Nathan]

But again, the problem is, if the only restaurants you think should get reviewed are those that have a shot at four stars, then you're limiting the review system to a very tiny number of restaurants that aren't that relevant to most people.

 

You are excluding ALL mid-level dining.

 

You are excluding ALL neighborhood places.

 

That CAN'T be what the review system is for.

 

unless you believe that only very expensive restaurants should be reviewed.

No. Read my posts.

 

 

you've indicated that only restaurants with a possibility of four stars should be reviewed.

 

only very expensive restaurants can afford that level of service, decor and luxe ingredients.

 

so, yes, you do de fact believe that.

No to all three.

 

Find evidence in above, if you feel like it.

 

uh, like here:

 

http://mouthfulsfood.com/forums//index.php...st&p=887116

 

and here.

 

http://mouthfulsfood.com/forums//index.php...st&p=887125

Em, what evidence?

 

Can you point to exhibit 1 contradicting exhibit 2?

 

This is nonsense.

 

very easily.

 

you say that there's no point in reviewing restaurants without four star prospects.

[yvonne johnson]

But it CAN be either good, very good, fair, or poor.

I don't know why there's an argument. You are basically saying what I've said all along: A deli can't gain more than 2 stars no matter how good it is. (Ditto steakhouses, it looks like.) So, the next question is: Why judge said places on a 4 star scale? It makes no sense.

 

Maybe what the NYT could do is say that acc to such and such category 2 stars are the maximum awarded--give the rating a sense of proportion. The NYT star rating is judging delis, steakhouses and whatever acc to standards (those assigned to Per Se) they can never reach. That is silly.

 

 

 

 

obviously you're concluding that Craftsteak is not a steakhouse?

I've no idea what you're on about, but Craftsteak's fish is better than its steak.

 

 

precisely

I misspoke. BLTSteak's fish was better than BLT's Fish's fish. Odd that. And that is precise.

 

again, this goes to my point.

What point? That I corrected a statement?

 

are BLT Steak and Craftsteak (which serves 70% of Craft's menu) steakhouses and therefore unworthy in your book? or are they "full restaurants"?

Again, I've no idea what you are on about. What relevance does % of menus shared by restaurants have anything to do with the prior discussion of what merits a NYT review?

[yvonne johnson]

But again, the problem is, if the only restaurants you think should get reviewed are those that have a shot at four stars, then you're limiting the review system to a very tiny number of restaurants that aren't that relevant to most people.

 

You are excluding ALL mid-level dining.

 

You are excluding ALL neighborhood places.

 

That CAN'T be what the review system is for.

 

unless you believe that only very expensive restaurants should be reviewed.

No. Read my posts.

 

 

you've indicated that only restaurants with a possibility of four stars should be reviewed.

 

only very expensive restaurants can afford that level of service, decor and luxe ingredients.

 

so, yes, you do de fact believe that.

No to all three.

 

Find evidence in above, if you feel like it.

 

uh, like here:

 

http://mouthfulsfood.com/forums//index.php...st&p=887116

 

and here.

 

http://mouthfulsfood.com/forums//index.php...st&p=887125

Em, what evidence?

 

Can you point to exhibit 1 contradicting exhibit 2?

 

This is nonsense.

 

very easily.

 

you say that there's no point in reviewing restaurants without four star prospects.

You are wrong.

 

[Nathan]

But again, the problem is, if the only restaurants you think should get reviewed are those that have a shot at four stars, then you're limiting the review system to a very tiny number of restaurants that aren't that relevant to most people.

 

You are excluding ALL mid-level dining.

 

You are excluding ALL neighborhood places.

 

That CAN'T be what the review system is for.

 

unless you believe that only very expensive restaurants should be reviewed.

No. Read my posts.

 

 

you've indicated that only restaurants with a possibility of four stars should be reviewed.

 

only very expensive restaurants can afford that level of service, decor and luxe ingredients.

 

so, yes, you do de fact believe that.

No to all three.

 

Find evidence in above, if you feel like it.

 

uh, like here:

 

http://mouthfulsfood.com/forums//index.php...st&p=887116

 

and here.

 

http://mouthfulsfood.com/forums//index.php...st&p=887125

Em, what evidence?

 

Can you point to exhibit 1 contradicting exhibit 2?

 

This is nonsense.

 

very easily.

 

you say that there's no point in reviewing restaurants without four star prospects.

You are wrong.

 

 

you said it. I quoted it. simple as that.

[yvonne johnson]

But again, the problem is, if the only restaurants you think should get reviewed are those that have a shot at four stars, then you're limiting the review system to a very tiny number of restaurants that aren't that relevant to most people.

 

You are excluding ALL mid-level dining.

 

You are excluding ALL neighborhood places.

 

That CAN'T be what the review system is for.

 

unless you believe that only very expensive restaurants should be reviewed.

No. Read my posts.

 

 

you've indicated that only restaurants with a possibility of four stars should be reviewed.

 

only very expensive restaurants can afford that level of service, decor and luxe ingredients.

 

so, yes, you do de fact believe that.

No to all three.

 

Find evidence in above, if you feel like it.

 

uh, like here:

 

http://mouthfulsfood.com/forums//index.php...st&p=887116

 

and here.

 

http://mouthfulsfood.com/forums//index.php...st&p=887125

Em, what evidence?

 

Can you point to exhibit 1 contradicting exhibit 2?

 

This is nonsense.

 

very easily.

 

you say that there's no point in reviewing restaurants without four star prospects.

You are wrong.

 

 

you said it. I quoted it. simple as that.

Go look; I said nothing of the sort.

 

Why not quote the 'evidence'?

 

[Nathan]

Go look; I said nothing of the sort.

 

Why not quote the 'evidence'?

 

"What does a deli have to do to be "extraordinary", or excellent, or very good. If it's not possible, then again (broken record) what's the point?"

 

"I don't know why there's an argument. You are basically saying what I've said all along: A deli can't gain more than 2 stars no matter how good it is. (Ditto steakhouses, it looks like.) So, the next question is: Why judge said places on a 4 star scale? It makes no sense."

[Miguel Gierbolini]

God, I hate these threads when posters quote the entire argument multiple times rather than quoting the last commentary. Makes me dizzy and willing to go read the LAtes Adventures of Popeye and Olive Oyl.

[SLBunge]

After wading though the sloppy quotes of quotes of quotes, I read this as saying yvonne wants a different scale (and she's probably going to suggest that they not be called stars) for restaurants that can never achieve anything above a single star.

 

 

[oakapple]

I must admit, I don't understand Yvonne's point either. She said it was pointless to review the 2nd Avenue Deli, since it could never attain four stars. But lots of places get reviewed that have no chance at four stars.

[yvonne johnson]

I love these kind of threads. They make for a better site.

[yvonne johnson]

I must admit, I don't understand Yvonne's point either. She said it was pointless to review the 2nd Avenue Deli, since it could never attain four stars. But lots of places get reviewed that have no chance at four stars.

Did I really say that?

[TaliesinNYC]

Whatever can be said of Mr. Big, it seems that he wants to expand the boundaries of what is reviewable. Sometimes appropriate, other times (like this instance) ludicrous.

 

Maybe he'll review Carnegie next. Or Russ & Daughters.