Jump to content

The Bruni Thread


Guest Aaron T

Recommended Posts

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"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 7.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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'?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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."

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

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...