Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Episode 8: "Common Threads"
BravoTV Message Boards > Shows > Top Chef > Top Chef - Season 4
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
WhataJoke
QUOTE (SimonBao @ May 6, 2008 - 11:42 AM) *
Actor, the thing is.........

If they had such access to a good Top Chef Pantry... that makes many of the meals even more disappointing. Frankly, even more confounding.

With access to the Pantry, then Mark's own dish warrants even greater criticism. A so-called "Red Curry" without the ingredients that make a "Red Curry."

Stephie's dish, whether it was or wasn't intended to be a Mafe, missing the seasonings that would make it reasonable. Lisa's under-seasoned, under-composed beans.

Makes sense to give them access to some kind of pantry, every family making $10 dinners does draw from their pantry every day. But if that pantry was available, why such drek on the plate?


Here is the quote from Mark's blog:
"Tom stated that I didn’t spend my money wisely at Wholefoods. Well the truth is that the only ingredients not included in my $10 was salt and a cup of rice.I felt the other competitors relied heavily on the ingredients that were supplied in the kitchen and their dishes did not reflect a meal for $10."

Marks Blog

So not only is the challange a sham but Tom is using the paramiters of it to leverage out maybe the only contestant who actually tried to follow the rules. And Tom has no excuse for being iggnorant to what was going on as he was in the kitchen the whole time.
actor59
QUOTE (SimonBao @ May 6, 2008 - 11:42 AM) *
Actor, the thing is.........

If they had such access to a good Top Chef Pantry... that makes many of the meals even more disappointing. Frankly, even more confounding.

With access to the Pantry, then Mark's own dish warrants even greater criticism. A so-called "Red Curry" without the ingredients that make a "Red Curry."

Stephie's dish, whether it was or wasn't intended to be a Mafe, missing the seasonings that would make it reasonable. Lisa's under-seasoned, under-composed beans.

Makes sense to give them access to some kind of pantry, every family making $10 dinners does draw from their pantry every day. But if that pantry was available, why such drek on the plate?


Simon Think the confuseing thing for most at home cooks is what we have in our Panty's at home...lol You look in mine you'll fined assorted dry herbs and spices... gravy mixes, pasta canned goods, sugar, flour etc.

Lee Anne restocks the TC Pantry on every challenge so what is in our pantry at home dose not reall compare to their expensive Pantry ingredients.. things like Truffle oil, the best Virgin Olive Oil, fresh herbs maybe a rare spice you get my drift.

On Marks blog he stuck pretty much to the $10 budget except for a cup of rice and some salt. In his Defence of his curry he said the challenge was for a family of 4 and it turned out to be 4 kids instead .. he said if he had know that in advance he would have made a more kid friendly curry instead.
WhataJoke
QUOTE (actor59 @ May 6, 2008 - 11:46 AM) *
It seems so clear now not one contestant was able to make their food for 4 dish under the percribed $10 budget... Mark was the closest he only used Salt and a cup of Rice from the pantry every thing else he got at Whole Foods.

I guess one could argue that well you could do it by buying the main ingredients at Whole Foods and then use what ever you have in your home pantry and it still would not count against you $10 budget. I say it is bending the rules to serve your purpose.

I know they thought Marks Food tasted the worst ergo he goes home.... but in all fairness I would love too see just how much each dish would have cost if the free stuff in the pantry would have been added up seperately?

If graded on a curve at judges table with that extra Free cost in mind then the contestant with the least amount of freebies would add a little more veto power to that contestant. In other words Mark followed the contest pretty much to the letter and had what lets say $2 over budget so his meal for 4 would cost $12 and the closest one to the contest. Nikki on the other hand used the free fresh herbs in the pantry and a few other ingrediants so lets say $15 in Freebies so her dish cost $25 in reality.

Oh well Marks Food was the worst tasteing so he goes and that is that.

Just curious on each contestant the Freebies in the pantry would have added on to their $10 budget... things that make you go hmmmm.

dry.gif


Marks food being labeled the "worst tasting" gets more and more dubious
all the time. LeeAnne said his wasn't bad but wasn't great either. That's a far cry from Padma's assertion that Stephanie's food was disgusting.
SimonBao
QUOTE (WhataJoke @ May 6, 2008 - 12:59 PM) *
Marks food being labeled the "worst tasting" gets more and more dubious
all the time. LeeAnne said his wasn't bad but wasn't great either. That's a far cry from Padma's assertion that Stephanie's food was disgusting.

Whata....

The chefs could have been tasked with preparing meals for the children at St. Margaret's Home for Adorable Orphans with Life-Threatening Allergies.

Mark could have fed those children shrimp in cream sauce with high-gluten noodles garnished with peanuts, there could be dead bodies all over the children's rec room, anaphylactic shock everywhere....

You'd still find some way to assert that Mark being sent home proves Your One Grand Point and that it's all conspiracy and fraud.

I suppose it is possible that the good sisters at St. Margaret's are involved in some scheme.

Season Five of Top Chef. Watch What Happens. The Knights Templar conspire with The Chaines de Rotisseurs, which is the Dining Arm of the Priory of Sion, in some plot that includes Colicchio and Andy Cohen and Top Chef's first Albino Cheftestant, to ensure that the popular favorite Cheftestant who is also Heir and Last Scion doesn't discover that the Holy Grail is in fact the Mixmaster Bowl in the TC kitchen...

Hence, the peanuts....
actor59
QUOTE (WhataJoke @ May 6, 2008 - 11:59 AM) *
Marks food being labeled the "worst tasting" gets more and more dubious
all the time. LeeAnne said his wasn't bad but wasn't great either. That's a far cry from Padma's assertion that Stephanie's food was disgusting.


Oh don't get me wrong WAJ I'm with you on this one I really believed Steph was going to be the one PYKAG.... if you notice I have not really posted about this last epi much untill today it took me a week to really try and see what disturbed me about this whole challenge. I enjoyed the epi but $10 on a family of 4 from Whole Foods just threw me for a loop. wacko.gif

I personally think after reading Marks blog that he was thrown two curve balls one The contest was a Family of 4 not 4 kids... as you know had he known that in advance instead of takeing Padmas word for it about the contest... he would of made a kid friendly curry dish.

Yes Tom hated Stephs dish I was thinking she was makeing a Satay or something but she was trying for an African twist hint the Tomato... Tom hated it but the guest judge liked it hense she got a pass according to the Bravo Editors blog...

So instead of jumping into the fray of the worst dish not going home I wanted to ponder it over and investigate all points. Thank you for pointing me the right direction with Marks Blog .... it answered alot of my questions.

Oh and by the way I loved his blog he is not vindictive or bitter about the whole thing.. was just shocked he got sent home... rolleyes.gif
WhataJoke
QUOTE (SimonBao @ May 6, 2008 - 12:10 PM) *
Whata....

The chefs could have been tasked with preparing meals for the children at St. Margaret's Home for Adorable Orphans with Life-Threatening Allergies.

Mark could have fed those children shrimp in cream sauce with high-gluten noodles garnished with peanuts, there could be dead bodies all over the children's rec room, anaphylactic shock everywhere....

You'd still find some way to assert that Mark being sent home proves Your One Grand Point and that it's all conspiracy and fraud.

I suppose it is possible that the good sisters at St. Margaret's are involved in some scheme.

Season Five of Top Chef. Watch What Happens. The Knights Templar conspire with The Chaines de Rotisseurs, which is the Dining Arm of the Priory of Sion, in some plot that includes Colicchio and Andy Cohen and Top Chef's first Albino Cheftestant, to ensure that the popular favorite Cheftestant who is also Heir and Last Scion doesn't discover that the Holy Grail is in fact the Mixmaster Bowl in the TC kitchen...

Hence, the peanuts....


Uh well if they did serve the food at St. Margaret's Home for Adorable Orphans with Life-Threatening Allergies Stephanie's food would have been the most deadly! wink.gif

Simon you may think that I'm as crazy as you say but the fact is that time after time I can come up with tid bits here and there that support my argument. Where there is smoke there is fire and this show has been billowing smoke since the end of season 1.

Hysterically funny post btw. Steve Jackson games should hire you to write for the next edition of Illuminati.
SimonBao
QUOTE (SimonBao @ May 6, 2008 - 01:10 PM) *
Season Five of Top Chef. Watch What Happens. The Knights Templar conspire with The Chaines de Rotisseurs, which is the Dining Arm of the Priory of Sion, in some plot that includes Colicchio and Andy Cohen and Top Chef's first Albino Cheftestant, to ensure that the popular favorite Cheftestant who is also Heir and Last Scion doesn't discover that the Holy Grail is in fact the Mixmaster Bowl in the TC kitchen...

It goes without saying that in any such conspiracy, Andy Cohen would of course be an unwitting participant.

That man's head could be on fire, he'd be the last person in the room to realize it.

But speaking of Cohen, anyone know why there haven't been any Watch What Happens interviews and call-ins? Those half-hour programs he was doing last season with ex-cheftestants or with judges?
Radyms13
Kinda butting in here because I found this very interesting!



Chris Borrelli had a good article in the Chicago Tribune last week about tips and how they get disbursed. I think the article made some great points, especially about what I consider an exploitative behavior of some restaurants which charge a percentage of the waiter’s tip to cover credit card processing fees, as if it’s the waiter’s fault the restaurant accepts plastic.

Assuming the restaurant doesn’t pay a flat processing fee to the credit card company, I might buy into the idea of sharing a percentage of the cost of a tip on an exceedingly large gratuity, since the restaurant would have to pay a greater processing fee without receiving any portion of the tip. Of course, I’d more likely accept that premise if restaurants started treating their waiters as real business partners and paid them full minimum wage.

One aspect that wasn’t covered in the article which I think bears some attention is the long simmering tension between the front of the house (i.e. the service staff) and the back of the house (the cooks and dishwashers etc), particularly in high end restaurants, which is often exacerbated by the tip system.



In elite restaurants, many chefs work a minimum of 14 hour days, and that’s a conservative estimate. I know of many local restaurants where’s it’s not uncommon to pull the occasional or regular 80-90 hour work week as a line cook.

In those same establishments, waiters tend to come in a few hours later and are often the first to leave at the end of the service. Now, I’m not arguing that servers don’t work hard. They stand on their feet and carry heavy plates and cases of wine for hours on end. Likewise, good service requires a unique and valuable skill set, like the ability to cultivate a relationship with a customer and be exacting without being too overbearing, something chefs can’t always do. At the end of the day, from what I’ve seen, the front of house work is usually cleaner, more air-conditioned, and many of these folks work a few less hours.

That being said, even if servers and line cooks worked the same hours or had exactly similar responsibilities, the disparity in their wages, especially at these high end establishments is extraordinary. At the really high end spots, it’s not uncommon for servers to pull in $60-80,000 while a typical line cook makes $24-28,000 dollars.

Part of the reason for the disparity is that restaurants generally subsidize the full labor cost of a kitchen worker, whereas, the server’s salary is subsidized by customer tips. Servers would argue that because tips are variable and they assume some risk in working for them, they deserve the spoils. That’s very true at the low end, though also not as consequential, because the disparity between servers and kitchen staff is much smaller on the low end of dining.

At high end restaurants, with educated wealthy clientele, average tip percentages are rarely below 18%, and in some cases, I know many average slightly above 20% because the experiences are so extraordinary. Servers at those places might argue that the reason tips are so high is strictly because of the service, but when’s the last time you said, hey I need to go to that restaurant because I hear they have kick ass servers? It’s a good bet you’re going because you read about a sweet dish from awesome chef X, which is likely prepared by a brigade of overworked and underpaid line cooks. Subconsciously, there’s no question most diners at this level are tipping well because they ate well.

I think this makes for an argument for some kind of shared pooling system to honor the contribution of the cooks and support staff. Doing so, might even free restaurants so they don’t have to spend as much of their working capital on kitchen salaries, and they might be able to lower food prices or provide better overall dining experiences.

Though the reason cooks tend to work such ridiculous hours now is because one way restaurants compensate for the low margins earned on food is by hiring less staff than they really need. I’d bet even if they had to pay less in labor costs through such a system, prices on menus probably wouldn’t drop much.

The problem of creating such shared system is that federal department of labor rules state: Tipped employees may not be required to share their tips with employees who have not customarily and regularly participated in tip pooling arrangements, such as dishwashers, cooks, chefs, and janitors.

There is a way to legally create a pooled system, though, and that’s to charge a flat service fee. A service fee is not considered a tip, and allows the restaurant to share the fee however they choose within the infrastructure of the restaurant. That’s the model that Per Se in New York follows.

The main complaint about such a system is that it robs the diner of the ability to award great service or punish bad service. Generally speaking, there may be a gaffe or two, but in my experience there’s no such thing as bad service at places like Per Se, Alinea, or Charlie Trotters.

Another problem is that technically the restaurant can do whatever it wants with such a fee, and there’s no guarantee anyone will see the return in salaries. Though I would guess high end places would disburse honorably.

The other problem with a service fee is that now in the diner’s mind a fixed meal price that used to be $200 just became $240+ with a 20% service fee. The psychological barrier of being compelled to pay a higher price, even though you were probably going to do so voluntarily is tough to get past, and could hurt a restaurant or cause customers to flock elsewhere.

Likewise, servers would rebel, because such a system would likely depress wages and reduce the amount they used to earn. Though, as I mentioned, I believe cooks have gotten stuck with the short end of the stick for years, and an adjustment needs to occur to honor their contribution and create better overall working relations.

My argument is not to reduce anyone’s wages though, and so I might even suggest a higher mandatory service fee if people can’t make a fair wage. On the other hand if a server who used to make 80,000 now makes 60,000 and a cook moves up to 50,000 as a result of such a system, it’s tough to argue that someone’s not receiving a fair wage.

Ultimately, I think what Borrelli’s article and my summation here address is that diners should understand where their dollars are going and what they’re buying when they dine out. Assuming restaurants aren’t making money hand over fist and just not taking care of their employees, there is some responsibility on the part of the diner to ensure a healthy restaurant industry.

I realize, in such a poor economy, everyone’s worried about their next move and every dollar spent. The idea of accepting any kind of burden of responsibility is really tough to swallow. On the other hand, as a freelance food writer who tends to make more in the ballpark of a line cook than a high end server, I still support paying slightly more, tipping a bit more, or encouraging a shared pool if it helps improve service, food, and ultimately the livelihood of those workers. It’s an easy proposition for me, because the work I’ve seen the workers in this industry do is extraordinary and also extraordinarily hard and I believe they deserve it. Of course, we all do.
Radyms13
QUOTE (Kristlkrost @ May 6, 2008 - 02:12 PM) *
Hmmmm

Much food for thought ....intended.....BUT

I'll let Tele take this one. tongue.gif
Oh...will he be happy.

Tipping out is a BIG deal.

I godda' think about it for real....As a waitress in my heart...or server..or whatever. Waitress sounds so Flo..... But I'm honored
to be one in my heart and wish I could still.
My snooty real estate appraiser cousin when I told her I would be doon' it if I could she said.

Oh well it was fine for when I was in college.
NO not me.......Tis fine always.

Yeah... she's out of a job now and waitresses
are still doon' it...bJ and I love to serve
peeps and make them happy...If you do that you will make a ton of money....As bJ said they are always our guests.


Seriously tele will telle all here...I 'm actually getting excited laugh.gif
Servers LOVE to tawk tips.


I think there are some interesting points brought up. I'm not saying I agree with everything, but it certainly does give one *food* for thought!

Very interested in Tele's opinion and everyone elses---we have a day to go before Wedding Wars---just trying to stir the pot a little!
mdalef
I'm a new poster, but I've been a fan of the show since it started. I record every episode and watch them, sometimes more than once, depending on which one of my family want's to see it.

The challenge was good and I loved that they brought the kids into it. I think it's a bit silly that they gave them $10 and sent them to Whole Foods to shop? huh.gif Who in thier right mind would shop at Whole Foods if they were on a real budget? wacko.gif and who believes that they paid retail there and came out of the store with more than a smoothie and a supliment pack.

Get real.
actor59
QUOTE (Radyms13 @ May 6, 2008 - 01:24 PM) *
I think there are some interesting points brought up. I'm not saying I agree with everything, but it certainly does give one *food* for thought!

Very interested in Tele's opinion and everyone elses---we have a day to go before Wedding Wars---just trying to stir the pot a little!


Well Rady Here in NOLA a waitor only makes $2.13 an hour so we really do live off our tips... we do not actually recieve a pay check because it goes towards our Taxes..... Most reastaurants here do have the front of the house share their tips the hostess, busser, runner, and Kitchen as well a percentage wich is all good and well but you do have to realize that those positions are not Tipped employees and do not claim those tips as cash recieved on taxes because they do not have too. Plus they make Min. wage we do not because we are tipped employees. Not to mention we get taxed on the gross amounts of the credit card tips.... so one can fudge a little on cash tips recieved. Credit card tips are always reported.... no way to get around that and it comes out of the waitors pocket.

Not saying that all States only pay $2.13 an hour only those of us lucky to live in Right To Work states are..... When I lived in Cali I worked Corparate Restaurant.... Red Lobster ( Yes Andre and Tim were Regs.) the thing about corparate was not only did I get raises but Insurance and paid vacations as well. By the Time I moved to NOLA I was makeing $9 an hour salary had a 3 week paid vacation that included the tips I had made yearly... so in that setting I did not mind the way all my tips were taxed because I always had a pay check every week plus my Tips I took home each night. Plus a 401 K plan, insurance, paid vacation....

Here however it would not be prudent to work for Red Lobster because you would end up paying the corparation the right to work for them... I would of taken a huge cut in pay....

So I guess what I'm trying to say is it depends on the state you work in...
Radyms13
QUOTE (actor59 @ May 6, 2008 - 02:53 PM) *
Well Rady Here in NOLA a waitor only makes $2.13 an hour so we really do live off our tips... we do not actually recieve a pay check because it goes towards our Taxes..... Most reastaurants here do have the front of the house share their tips the hostess, busser, runner, and Kitchen as well a percentage wich is all good and well but you do have to realize that those positions are not Tipped employees and do not claim those tips as cash recieved on taxes because they do not have too. Plus they make Min. wage we do not because we are tipped employees. Not to mention we get taxed on the gross amounts of the credit card tips.... so one can fudge a little on cash tips recieved. Credit card tips are always reported.... no way to get around that and it comes out of the waitors pocket.

Not saying that all States only pay $2.13 an hour only those of us lucky to live in Right To Work states are..... When I lived in Cali I worked Corparate Restaurant.... Red Lobster ( Yes Andre and Tim were Regs.) the thing about corparate was not only did I get raises but Insurance and paid vacations as well. By the Time I moved to NOLA I was makeing $9 an hour salary had a 3 week paid vacation that included the tips I had made yearly... so in that setting I did not mind the way all my tips were taxed because I always had a pay check every week plus my Tips I took home each night. Plus a 401 K plan, insurance, paid vacation....

Here however it would not be prudent to work for Red Lobster because you would end up paying the corparation the right to work for them... I would of taken a huge cut in pay....

So I guess what I'm trying to say is it depends on the state you work in...


Michigan is right to work also. I used to be the bookkeeper/payroll at a bar/restaurant so I understand how servers are paid (or not paid).

I tip in cash for that very reason. My mom worked her butt off and provided a living on tips for quite a few years.

I thought the article was interesting and maybe would give people something to think about when they dine out. I think many are so interested in their experience and pleasure that they don't think about the folks who work and how they are paid.
teleburst
QUOTE (actor59 @ May 6, 2008 - 09:54 AM) *
Tele I can see your point but I think your streching it lol.... too me any way the challenge is $10 for 4 people not 8. I think the judges get food only from the challenge not extra food cooked for them... we have what 8 or 9 contestants still cooking and I think they plate the food acordingly to however many dishes are needed that is why to me any way the portions are so small.

I could be wrong cause I have read where Leann has tasted each dish as well from the contestants... so who knows how much food each of them have to prepare for everyone involved?


Well, Lee Ann has always said that they are told exactly how many dishes that they have to prepare. Therefore, we know that in this particular challenge, they had to prepare at least 8 dishes (and maybe she specifies another 2 extra dishes - one for photo and one for her, although I get the idea that she just sort of tastes along with the judges). The challenge is indeed to prepare a dinner for 4 for $10. But this doesn't mean that you have to shop separately for 4 and then again for another 4 and have to double up on your bunches of parsley, thyme, etc. Preparing a dinner for 8 gives you the ability to spread your costs out a little better, so your $20 goes a little further than only being able to spend $10 on the ingredients for a dinner for 4.

Talk about about prices - I can't even afford reggiano parmesano anymore, even at Kroger. $16 for a thin little sliver? <cue Jon Stewart's outraged voice> Dammmmn you, US Dollar! And the prices for herbs? Outrageous. I've started growing my own on my front porch. It's nice to smell Thai basil, rosemary and sage on my way to work. $2.50 for a little plastic sleeve of rosemary? GMAB.

Ramen is still dirt cheap though <g>

I do find a real lack of thinking on the part of producers demanding that the CTs shop in a high-end boutique grocery store for a "feed the family for $10 challenge". On that we're totally agreed.

Where's the ramen challenge when you need one?
WhataJoke
QUOTE (teleburst @ May 6, 2008 - 02:47 PM) *
Where's the ramen challenge when you need one?


When Top Ramen ponies up the cash to be a sponsor. Then well get the Top Ramen Top Chef Top Challenge!

I should run Bravo's media department.
actor59
QUOTE (teleburst @ May 6, 2008 - 02:47 PM) *
Well, Lee Ann has always said that they are told exactly how many dishes that they have to prepare. Therefore, we know that in this particular challenge, they had to prepare at least 8 dishes (and maybe she specifies another 2 extra dishes - one for photo and one for her, although I get the idea that she just sort of tastes along with the judges). The challenge is indeed to prepare a dinner for 4 for $10. But this doesn't mean that you have to shop separately for 4 and then again for another 4 and have to double up on your bunches of parsley, thyme, etc. Preparing a dinner for 8 gives you the ability to spread your costs out a little better, so your $20 goes a little further than only being able to spend $10 on the ingredients for a dinner for 4.

Talk about about prices - I can't even afford reggiano parmesano anymore, even at Kroger. $16 for a thin little sliver? <cue Jon Stewart's outraged voice> Dammmmn you, US Dollar! And the prices for herbs? Outrageous. I've started growing my own on my front porch. It's nice to smell Thai basil, rosemary and sage on my way to work. $2.50 for a little plastic sleeve of rosemary? GMAB.

Ramen is still dirt cheap though <g>

I do find a real lack of thinking on the part of producers demanding that the CTs shop in a high-end boutique grocery store for a "feed the family for $10 challenge". On that we're totally agreed.

Where's the ramen challenge when you need one?


No I think you and I agree but while you were at work we found Marks blog and it really opened my eyes as to how the chefs completed this $10 challenge...... Brilkes Blog said they contacted Bravo to clarrify about the Pantry use but they still claim it is just like any other Kitchen pantry.... blink.gif

Well if that is the case where are my fresh herbs and Truffle Oils and high end Olive Oils?

I Had to laugh at one of the blogs they had a caption that said " What $10 will not even let you look at the cheeses alone Here at Whole Foods" That about sums it up for me.... laugh.gif
teleburst
QUOTE (actor59 @ May 6, 2008 - 01:53 PM) *
Well Rady Here in NOLA a waitor only makes $2.13 an hour so we really do live off our tips... we do not actually recieve a pay check because it goes towards our Taxes..... Most reastaurants here do have the front of the house share their tips the hostess, busser, runner, and Kitchen as well a percentage wich is all good and well but you do have to realize that those positions are not Tipped employees and do not claim those tips as cash recieved on taxes because they do not have too. Plus they make Min. wage we do not because we are tipped employees. Not to mention we get taxed on the gross amounts of the credit card tips.... so one can fudge a little on cash tips recieved. Credit card tips are always reported.... no way to get around that and it comes out of the waitors pocket.

Not saying that all States only pay $2.13 an hour only those of us lucky to live in Right To Work states are..... When I lived in Cali I worked Corparate Restaurant.... Red Lobster ( Yes Andre and Tim were Regs.) the thing about corparate was not only did I get raises but Insurance and paid vacations as well. By the Time I moved to NOLA I was makeing $9 an hour salary had a 3 week paid vacation that included the tips I had made yearly... so in that setting I did not mind the way all my tips were taxed because I always had a pay check every week plus my Tips I took home each night. Plus a 401 K plan, insurance, paid vacation....

Here however it would not be prudent to work for Red Lobster because you would end up paying the corparation the right to work for them... I would of taken a huge cut in pay....

So I guess what I'm trying to say is it depends on the state you work in...


One quick correction - nobody gets (or should get) taxed on anything other than what they actually make and what's reported on the W2, which is based on the reported tips and if a restaurant is reporting gross tips before tipout as income, they are not only wrong, they are cheating you. The only thing that should be reported is your after-tipout tips, i.e., the money that you walk with in your pocket at the end of the night. You do have to report your gross tips, but you shouldn't be taxed on that. You should also be subtracting out any tipout amounts to come to a net figure and THAT'S what you should be taxed on.

I don't know about LA, since the Napoleonic Code thing there is weird, but it's against federal law to require tipping out to "normally not-tipped employees" like managers and kitchen people.

And when you say that the paycheck goes toward taxes, let me emphasize to non-restaurant people that it doesn't begin to cover all of the Federal income tax. Unless we kick in additional money out of pocket throughout the year, withholding falls well short of our actual taxes in April. For instance, I owed $2800 this year. There's just not enough 2.13 money to go around. So, we get a zero check and still owe a bunch toward taxes.

Oh yeah, technically those recipients of your tipouts are supposed to claim them as income. Every restaurant I've worked in has made bussers and food runners declare what we give them, mainly because we actually have reported those tipouts ourselves as a reduction of OUR income. It doesn't surprise me that some restaurants don't do that though.
dogabone
QUOTE (actor59 @ May 6, 2008 - 03:00 PM) *
No I think you and I agree but while you were at work we found Marks blog and it really opened my eyes as to how the chefs completed this $10 challenge...... Brilkes Blog said they contacted Bravo to clarrify about the Pantry use but they still claim it is just like any other Kitchen pantry.... blink.gif

Well if that is the case where are my fresh herbs and Truffle Oils and high end Olive Oils?

I Had to laugh at one of the blogs they had a caption that said " What $10 will not even let you look at the cheeses alone Here at Whole Foods" That about sums it up for me.... laugh.gif

The whole trick is to line your pockets with plastic bags and hit all the sample stations in the store, filling your pockets with little cheese cubes, triangles of pita, fresh salsa, and hummus—at least that's what's constantly on sample display at my local Whole Foods! wink.gif
teleburst
QUOTE (actor59 @ May 6, 2008 - 12:18 PM) *
Oh and by the way I loved his blog he is not vindictive or bitter about the whole thing.. was just shocked he got sent home... rolleyes.gif


Yeah, I thought he was pretty classy about it.

That was an interesting point about the guest judge. He seemed to be pretty uncritical when it came to dishes, at least in his blog. I just have a hard time seeing how he would like a "curry" made with only equal proportions of cumin, cinnamon and tamarind as seasonings. And who knows why he would like Stephanie's dish when two other judges seem to dislike it intensely? He seemed the kind of guy who didn't want to say bad things about anyone's sincere efforts. Maybe we're also forgetting the kids. Perhaps they were swayed by the peanut butter and maybe they liked it better than some of even the more "refined" dishes (we'll probably never know that one, just that they liked Mark's dish the least). Kids sometimes like "mushy" things after all.
actor59
QUOTE (teleburst @ May 6, 2008 - 03:03 PM) *
One quick correction - nobody gets (or should get) taxed on anything other than what they actually make and what's reported on the W2, which is based on the reported tips and if a restaurant is reporting gross tips before tipout as income, they are not only wrong, they are cheating you. The only thing that should be reported is your after-tipout tips, i.e., the money that you walk with in your pocket at the end of the night. You do have to report your gross tips, but you shouldn't be taxed on that. You should also be subtracting out any tipout amounts to come to a net figure and THAT'S what you should be taxed on.

I don't know about LA, since the Napoleonic Code thing there is weird, but it's against federal law to require tipping out to "normally not-tipped employees" like managers and kitchen people.

And when you say that the paycheck goes toward taxes, let me emphasize to non-restaurant people that it doesn't begin to cover all of the Federal income tax. Unless we kick in additional money out of pocket throughout the year, withholding falls well short of our actual taxes in April. For instance, I owed $2800 this year. There's just not enough 2.13 money to go around. So, we get a zero check and still owe a bunch toward taxes.

Oh yeah, technically those recipients of your tipouts are supposed to claim them as income. Every restaurant I've worked in has made bussers and food runners declare what we give them, mainly because we actually have reported those tipouts ourselves as a reduction of OUR income. It doesn't surprise me that some restaurants don't do that though.


Oh I know your preaching to the choir here lol.. but this is NOLA and they do things here that the rest of the states do not. And your right about haveing to owe even though my entire check or lack of goes to pay taxes. But No they un tipped employes do not claim it they call it beer money here...lol

I mean we can itamize if we want for Uniforms, dry cleaning etc.. but it is a waste of Time really you still end up oweing so you put some money away each week to give to the IRS.... that is why I love getting cash tips no matter what they can't prove how much you made that night.. I know naughty of me but I gota live too...lol

I got out of the restaurant business right after Katrina because I really could not afford to live off of it any more.

But even though my last job was as a Barrista I made $6 an hour plus tips so I was pulling around $3000. a month but I still had to pay taxes this year but atleast I was makeing a better living without the head aches of a true restaurant. rolleyes.gif
SecondTry
QUOTE (actor59 @ May 6, 2008 - 04:18 PM) *
that is why I love getting cash tips no matter what they can't prove how much you made that night..



You know, that never occured to me, and I've been putting tips on my credit card for years.....
actor59
QUOTE (mdalef @ May 6, 2008 - 01:26 PM) *
I'm a new poster, but I've been a fan of the show since it started. I record every episode and watch them, sometimes more than once, depending on which one of my family want's to see it.

The challenge was good and I loved that they brought the kids into it. I think it's a bit silly that they gave them $10 and sent them to Whole Foods to shop? huh.gif Who in thier right mind would shop at Whole Foods if they were on a real budget? wacko.gif and who believes that they paid retail there and came out of the store with more than a smoothie and a supliment pack.

Get real.


Hey MD welcome to the boards and welcome to Whole Foods Gate...lol
EriRose
QUOTE (teleburst @ May 6, 2008 - 04:14 PM) *
Yeah, I thought he was pretty classy about it.

That was an interesting point about the guest judge. He seemed to be pretty uncritical when it came to dishes, at least in his blog. I just have a hard time seeing how he would like a "curry" made with only equal proportions of cumin, cinnamon and tamarind as seasonings. And who knows why he would like Stephanie's dish when two other judges seem to dislike it intensely? He seemed the kind of guy who didn't want to say bad things about anyone's sincere efforts. Maybe we're also forgetting the kids. Perhaps they were swayed by the peanut butter and maybe they liked it better than some of even the more "refined" dishes (we'll probably never know that one, just that they liked Mark's dish the least). Kids sometimes like "mushy" things after all.

Hi, I really enjoy reading everyone's point of view here. I'm new to the Top Chef board, but have been paying attention on and off for the last few years. I loved the first season,and rooted for Harold the whole way. I have to admit I kind of like mushy couscous. I believe Lee Ann in her blog also mentioned that Stephanie's vegetables were good, as well as her apple dessert so that may have helped her too. The kids were a factor that didn't seem to be exploited fully. I can't believe they would keep Stephanie for drama because she seems to be the most low key chef along with Nikki. I hope Stephanie has good luck with the wedding cake, which she seems to be making by herself, at least from what they have shown us in the ads for Wedding Wars. I'm rooting for her. I'm starting to like Antonia and Dale more and more.
teleburst
QUOTE (Radyms13 @ May 6, 2008 - 01:24 PM) *
I think there are some interesting points brought up. I'm not saying I agree with everything, but it certainly does give one *food* for thought!

Very interested in Tele's opinion and everyone elses---we have a day to go before Wedding Wars---just trying to stir the pot a little!


Well, there certainly is a disparity between FOH and BOH in terms of wages. It's sort of like the disparity between actors and production people in films and television. In fact, BOH is a production position and FOH is more of a sales position (and of course, without sounding egotistical, the figurehead of the restaurant). And a server is more like an independant contractor in a way. The restaurant provides him or her with "real estate" and a product, and the server is paid a minimum amount and allowed to work his or her "territory" as they see fit (within the guidelines of the restaurant, of course) in order to maximize their income. Most of that income comes directly from the consumer, so it's akin to a commission-based position, especially since the income is a percentage of the gross sales minus "costs" (tipouts).

BOH is a little different in that you can count on periodic raises, firm hours, etc. So there's a little more "stability" in income and there's an incentive possible. Plus, you can always move up in terms of positional mobility by ving up to an 'executive position" if that's something that you want to work towards. Servers really don't have much mobility and their incentive is to get compensated by the guest, who is free to compensate based on no particular rationality if they chose to (most don't do this, mind you, but there are a small minority who choose to "cheap out", simply because they can). Having said that, even with the mobility issue, wages in BOH lag behind FOH. But, most BOH people are happy where they are. They could certainly become servers and make more money, but most of them like not having to deal with guests, especially when they hear secondhand about what guests sometimes put us through. Plus, they'd rather cook than serve, even though it's a hotter, sweatier, dirtier, often stressier sort of position. BOH people seem to thrive on it. They don't have to fuss with their appearance and they have a more free-wheeling job lifestyle (the ole "pirate" thing that Bourdain talks about sometimes).

Tips are an unusual form of compensation in that's it's based on direct interaction with the guest. In fact, that's how the Federal government defines a "tipped employee" - first, you make at least $25 in tips a week (I think it's a week). Then, you have to provide direct service to the guest (which is why the courts have ruled that hostesses can now be considered tipped employees). And there's the old "normally tipped occupation" clause that excludes management and presumably kitchen.

I wouldn't be in favor of a shared tip pool for the whole restaurant. I'm not even in favor of tip pools in general because I think it defeats the purpose of a single person putting forth their best effort in terms of service. I'm not talking about tipouts but tip pools where all of the money is evenly divided amongst staffers. I think it encourages mediocrity in a way because you always have differing levels of commitment, competence and work ethic when you get more than two people together. It isn' always a bad thing. I do tip pools when I work on private parties, just as I did for lunch today. that usually works out just fine. But globally? Nahhhhh.

I'm certainly not interested in taking a hit on my income but that's just base self-interest.

BTW, most people don't know this (even many restaurant people) but autograts and automatic service charges aren't legally considered "tips". It's illegal for a restaurant to withhold or keep any normal tip income with these exceptions - they can require a tip out to other tipped employees and in some if not most states, they can indeed take a percentage out for credit card sales (fortunately I've never worked in a restaurant that does this and probably never would work for such a restaurant because this is part of the cost of doing business and I'm not willing to subsidize that cost). However, "service charges" are considered to be "owned" by the restaurant. Technically and legally, they can do anything they want with that money. They could keep every red cent if they wanted to. Most don't, of course. Most restaurants treat an autograt the same as tipped income, which is just fine since the standard for handling of tip income is far stricter.

Hmmm, the restaurant business is just like sausage. Might be better not to know exactly how it's made <chuckle>.
actor59
I'm watching the replay of the Tail Gate epi and it just hit me the guest judge could of been Mike Midgely's brother.... laugh.gif
teleburst
QUOTE (WhataJoke @ May 6, 2008 - 02:53 PM) *
When Top Ramen ponies up the cash to be a sponsor. Then well get the Top Ramen Top Chef Top Challenge!

I should run Bravo's media department.


You really should.

I loves me some ramen. And I don't even try to gussy it up. One time, I put some boiled chicken in one (I was trying to maximize the chicken left over from making a big pot of stock) and it didn't even make it better. It was a distraction from the MSG-fueled goodness and essential ramen purity <chuckle>.

Still, sponsorship notwithstanding, it seems like such a natural challenge. Who hasn't had ramen save their bacon at one point or another? Thank you Momofuku Edo. Not only did you lend your name to Elvis Costello's great new album, you made it possible to have a filling and satisfying dish in 5 minutes with minimum cleanup.

BTW, I was in my Thai store a couple of weeks ago and found a Tom Yum soup ramen. It wasn't horrible but it was a pale imitation of the real thing. At least it tasted somewhat like curry, unlike Mark's bastardization of the noble red curry.
bJason
QUOTE (Radyms13 @ May 6, 2008 - 02:00 PM) *
Kinda butting in here because I found this very interesting!



Chris Borrelli had a good article in the Chicago Tribune last week about tips and how they get disbursed. I think the article made some great points, especially about what I consider an exploitative behavior of some restaurants which charge a percentage of the waiter's tip to cover credit card processing fees, as if it's the waiter's fault the restaurant accepts plastic.

Assuming the restaurant doesn't pay a flat processing fee to the credit card company, I might buy into the idea of sharing a percentage of the cost of a tip on an exceedingly large gratuity, since the restaurant would have to pay a greater processing fee without receiving any portion of the tip. Of course, I'd more likely accept that premise if restaurants started treating their waiters as real business partners and paid them full minimum wage.

One aspect that wasn't covered in the article which I think bears some attention is the long simmering tension between the front of the house (i.e. the service staff) and the back of the house (the cooks and dishwashers etc), particularly in high end restaurants, which is often exacerbated by the tip system.



In elite restaurants, many chefs work a minimum of 14 hour days, and that's a conservative estimate. I know of many local restaurants where's it's not uncommon to pull the occasional or regular 80-90 hour work week as a line cook.

In those same establishments, waiters tend to come in a few hours later and are often the first to leave at the end of the service. Now, I'm not arguing that servers don't work hard. They stand on their feet and carry heavy plates and cases of wine for hours on end. Likewise, good service requires a unique and valuable skill set, like the ability to cultivate a relationship with a customer and be exacting without being too overbearing, something chefs can't always do. At the end of the day, from what I've seen, the front of house work is usually cleaner, more air-conditioned, and many of these folks work a few less hours.

That being said, even if servers and line cooks worked the same hours or had exactly similar responsibilities, the disparity in their wages, especially at these high end establishments is extraordinary. At the really high end spots, it's not uncommon for servers to pull in $60-80,000 while a typical line cook makes $24-28,000 dollars.

Part of the reason for the disparity is that restaurants generally subsidize the full labor cost of a kitchen worker, whereas, the server's salary is subsidized by customer tips. Servers would argue that because tips are variable and they assume some risk in working for them, they deserve the spoils. That's very true at the low end, though also not as consequential, because the disparity between servers and kitchen staff is much smaller on the low end of dining.

At high end restaurants, with educated wealthy clientele, average tip percentages are rarely below 18%, and in some cases, I know many average slightly above 20% because the experiences are so extraordinary. Servers at those places might argue that the reason tips are so high is strictly because of the service, but when's the last time you said, hey I need to go to that restaurant because I hear they have kick ass servers? It's a good bet you're going because you read about a sweet dish from awesome chef X, which is likely prepared by a brigade of overworked and underpaid line cooks. Subconsciously, there's no question most diners at this level are tipping well because they ate well.

I think this makes for an argument for some kind of shared pooling system to honor the contribution of the cooks and support staff. Doing so, might even free restaurants so they don't have to spend as much of their working capital on kitchen salaries, and they might be able to lower food prices or provide better overall dining experiences.

Though the reason cooks tend to work such ridiculous hours now is because one way restaurants compensate for the low margins earned on food is by hiring less staff than they really need. I'd bet even if they had to pay less in labor costs through such a system, prices on menus probably wouldn't drop much.

The problem of creating such shared system is that federal department of labor rules state: Tipped employees may not be required to share their tips with employees who have not customarily and regularly participated in tip pooling arrangements, such as dishwashers, cooks, chefs, and janitors.

There is a way to legally create a pooled system, though, and that's to charge a flat service fee. A service fee is not considered a tip, and allows the restaurant to share the fee however they choose within the infrastructure of the restaurant. That's the model that Per Se in New York follows.

The main complaint about such a system is that it robs the diner of the ability to award great service or punish bad service. Generally speaking, there may be a gaffe or two, but in my experience there's no such thing as bad service at places like Per Se, Alinea, or Charlie Trotters.

Another problem is that technically the restaurant can do whatever it wants with such a fee, and there's no guarantee anyone will see the return in salaries. Though I would guess high end places would disburse honorably.

The other problem with a service fee is that now in the diner's mind a fixed meal price that used to be $200 just became $240+ with a 20% service fee. The psychological barrier of being compelled to pay a higher price, even though you were probably going to do so voluntarily is tough to get past, and could hurt a restaurant or cause customers to flock elsewhere.

Likewise, servers would rebel, because such a system would likely depress wages and reduce the amount they used to earn. Though, as I mentioned, I believe cooks have gotten stuck with the short end of the stick for years, and an adjustment needs to occur to honor their contribution and create better overall working relations.

My argument is not to reduce anyone's wages though, and so I might even suggest a higher mandatory service fee if people can't make a fair wage. On the other hand if a server who used to make 80,000 now makes 60,000 and a cook moves up to 50,000 as a result of such a system, it's tough to argue that someone's not receiving a fair wage.

Ultimately, I think what Borrelli's article and my summation here address is that diners should understand where their dollars are going and what they're buying when they dine out. Assuming restaurants aren't making money hand over fist and just not taking care of their employees, there is some responsibility on the part of the diner to ensure a healthy restaurant industry.

I realize, in such a poor economy, everyone's worried about their next move and every dollar spent. The idea of accepting any kind of burden of responsibility is really tough to swallow. On the other hand, as a freelance food writer who tends to make more in the ballpark of a line cook than a high end server, I still support paying slightly more, tipping a bit more, or encouraging a shared pool if it helps improve service, food, and ultimately the livelihood of those workers. It's an easy proposition for me, because the work I've seen the workers in this industry do is extraordinary and also extraordinarily hard and I believe they deserve it. Of course, we all do.

WOW! This is a big one. My first thought, as a former restaurateur is that a restaurant is not a socialist society. It is a capitalist industry. If a person is willing to stake hir income on hir performance, s/he should not be begrudged the fruits of hir labor. If a line cook/sous chef/dishwasher accepts a job offered for a given salary then that is it. If the server is informed that hir wages will be reduced to cover credit card processing fees and s/he accepts this as a factor of hir job/pay – and still agrees to take the job - then so be it. Is this an insidious thing to do to your staff? YES! Do they have a say in whether or not you (as the restaurant owner) accept credit cards? I would say – no! It would be interesting to know (though I am sure that I do) whether or not a given server, in this situation, can refuse to accept credit cards.

As for the disparity between FOH and BOH take-home-pay – that is what it is. Does it suck? Sure. BOH make a set wage and FOH rely on gratuities. If one wants to make the most money in the rest. business – s/he gambles on hir ability to earn tips. If one wants to earn a steady wage, s/he puts hirself in the BOH.

Unfortunately, it is business economics. If restaurateurs could get away with paying BOH staff less, they would. They get away with paying FOH staff less because they can.
WhataJoke
QUOTE (teleburst @ May 6, 2008 - 03:14 PM) *
Yeah, I thought he was pretty classy about it.

That was an interesting point about the guest judge. He seemed to be pretty uncritical when it came to dishes, at least in his blog. I just have a hard time seeing how he would like a "curry" made with only equal proportions of cumin, cinnamon and tamarind as seasonings. And who knows why he would like Stephanie's dish when two other judges seem to dislike it intensely? He seemed the kind of guy who didn't want to say bad things about anyone's sincere efforts. Maybe we're also forgetting the kids. Perhaps they were swayed by the peanut butter and maybe they liked it better than some of even the more "refined" dishes (we'll probably never know that one, just that they liked Mark's dish the least). Kids sometimes like "mushy" things after all.


Well he whacked Lisa's meal for being bland.
And he said Mark's attitude sucked. Whcih was really strange considering the episode. Could he have ment Lisa's?

He liked the Curry which is a wash because he said he liked the Peanut disaster too. The more I read his blog the more I think he was mixing things up.

But Lee Anne said it wasn't great but it wasn't bad either. Lee Anne didnt mention tasting Stephanie's dish I don't think.
WhataJoke
QUOTE
EriRose Posted Today, 03:42 PM
Hi, I really enjoy reading everyone's point of view here. I'm new to the Top Chef board, but have been paying attention on and off for the last few years. I loved the first season,and rooted for Harold the whole way. I have to admit I kind of like mushy couscous. I believe Lee Ann in her blog also mentioned that Stephanie's vegetables were good, as well as her apple dessert so that may have helped her too. The kids were a factor that didn't seem to be exploited fully. I can't believe they would keep Stephanie for drama because she seems to be the most low key chef along with Nikki. I hope Stephanie has good luck with the wedding cake, which she seems to be making by herself, at least from what they have shown us in the ads for Wedding Wars. I'm rooting for her. I'm starting to like Antonia and Dale more and more.


Hey Eri welcome aboard.
I think that Stephanie gets kept because they liked her cooking in past challenges and Mark's work was not as good to this point. Also she does get nervous and has melt downs, much like this weeks peanutbutter mess. The drama of a good chef failing spectacularly can be a good story for Production as well.

Don't get me wrong I like Stephanie alot and would love to see her win but Tre didn't get any slack cut his way in RW and I think he was a better chef than the Majority of people here this season.
bJason
QUOTE (teleburst @ May 6, 2008 - 04:03 PM) *
One quick correction - nobody gets (or should get) taxed on anything other than what they actually make and what's reported on the W2, which is based on the reported tips and if a restaurant is reporting gross tips before tipout as income, they are not only wrong, they are cheating you. The only thing that should be reported is your after-tipout tips, i.e., the money that you walk with in your pocket at the end of the night. You do have to report your gross tips, but you shouldn't be taxed on that. You should also be subtracting out any tipout amounts to come to a net figure and THAT'S what you should be taxed on.

I don't know about LA, since the Napoleonic Code thing there is weird, but it's against federal law to require tipping out to "normally not-tipped employees" like managers and kitchen people.

And when you say that the paycheck goes toward taxes, let me emphasize to non-restaurant people that it doesn't begin to cover all of the Federal income tax. Unless we kick in additional money out of pocket throughout the year, withholding falls well short of our actual taxes in April. For instance, I owed $2800 this year. There's just not enough 2.13 money to go around. So, we get a zero check and still owe a bunch toward taxes.

Oh yeah, technically those recipients of your tipouts are supposed to claim them as income. Every restaurant I've worked in has made bussers and food runners declare what we give them, mainly because we actually have reported those tipouts ourselves as a reduction of OUR income. It doesn't surprise me that some restaurants don't do that though.


In the state where I was a waiter, it was required that servers declared salered income plus 8% of individual gross sales - whether or not that percentage was made. I quit a job because I was required to tip-out such that I took home LESS than the 8% on which I was being taxed. When I approached my boss with this delimma she replied that that sucked but it was company policy (national chain).
teleburst
QUOTE (WhataJoke @ May 6, 2008 - 09:56 AM) *
You know for a guy who went out of his way to find out about amino acids in white rice you really dropped the ball ont he fats in coconut Milk. I mentioned it before there are so many suspected and proven benefits to it that there is ongoing medical research being done on them and there has been in the past.

http://www.templeofthai.com/cooking/coconu...cholesterol.php

For instance, a study in 1981 showed that islanders with high intakes of coconut oil showed "no evidence of the high saturated fat intake having a harmful effect in these populations". When these groups migrated to New Zealand, however, and lowered their intake of coconut oil, their total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol increased, and their HDL cholesterol decreased.

One possible reason that the saturated fat in coconut had no harmful effect on the islanders, Dr. Enig proposes, is the lauric acid. Approximately 50% of the fatty acids in coconut fat are lauric acid. Lauric acid is a medium chain fatty acid, found naturally in mother's milk. Lauric acid has the beneficial function of being formed into monolaurin in the body. Monolaurin is the antiviral, antibacterial, and antiprotozoal monoglyceride used by the body to destroy lipid-coated viruses such as HIV, herpes, and influenza.


Sounds exactly like a bad fat to me. wacko.gif

After Tom and Co. slip up with the Lobster last season he should stay away from arguing about health benefits.

And again we are talking about the dish as part of a healthy diet and I think it certainly qualifies. Considering there is not a shortage or concern with children lacking protien in their diets I find the protein argument to be a red herring to get rid of a contestant.


I'm glad that we've found a cure for HIV, especially since I use my fair share of coconut milk.

However, it doesn't seem to be a slam dunk either.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=137224

"Q.
Is coconut milk high in saturated fat?

A. Yes, regular coconut milk is extremely high in saturated fat, It is also high in calories. Just ½ cup contains roughly 250 calories and between 20 to 25 grams of saturated fat -- at least a day's worth.

As a more healthful alternative, try using small amounts of light coconut milk to retain that distinct taste with much less fat. Keep your portion to ½ cup and you'll get just 50 calories and 4 grams of saturated fat.

Wide-sweeping Internet claims that the fat in coconut milk and coconut oil offers distinct health benefits are not supported by sound research".

However, I really didn't mean to single out the coconut milk as a reason why his dish wasn't a balanced nutritional meal. The issue to me was the incomplete protein. And even those who sing the praises of coconut milk seem to think that it's best to be used in moderation anyway, still keeping in mind that it's high in fat, even the good kind. And I have no problem with the way Mark used it. And I don't think that it was singled out as an issue by the judges.

As to the study, I can't really address it, not having access to it, but it doesn't seem clear that a reduction of coconut milk is the sole cause of the islanders' rise in cholesterol. I don't know if they eliminated all other relevant issues in change of diet and environment.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a coconut milk fan. I've got four cans of it in my pantry as I type this. I couldn't cook much of my Thai food without it. I even have several different kinds of coconut milk for different uses. I have the lighter version that only has 8% fat and I also have the 22% variety as well. Both have their places in my cooking especially in moderation.
Bed & Breakfast
QUOTE (WhataJoke @ May 5, 2008 - 10:49 AM) *
Your name was taken in vein? Did people miss Mass too? wink.gif

Seriously It's good to see you back and glad to hear things are busy.

Wait I thought it was the "worst food goes" theory? It's certainly not "all about the food" as I could gone on and on about with casting past eliminations etc...

Yes I agree "offputing" could be a something that simply inspires a subjective response, such as your aversion to Dill. However in Stephanie's case the dish was poorly executed as even the cous cous was overcooked, the flavor combination seemed to be disgusting, it was visually nauseating and also Padma "Detested" it, backing up the point that it was nasty. So I'd say that when Tom says "offputting" he's being kind and using a bit of Damage control for someone who has excelled in the past.

Your example of Casey Mole' at Latin Lunch is close but Lia's food was poorly cooked, didn't taste good and wasn't Latin and she deserved to go.

And Clearly Tom was fishing for any reason to eliminate Mark when he played the protein card. I talked to a friend of mind who is a nutritionist and the the only thing she could find that why people would think it was "unhealthy" was the coconut milk simply for the saturated fat but also noted that the type of saturated fat in coconut milk also offers health benefits and is the subject of medical research for it's benefits. Between the vegetables and the coconut milk there was enough protein for a healthy meal as part of a balanced diet, that is unless your looking for some reason to eliminate someone on a Reality TV show.

Couple the coconut milk with the Sweet Potato, Squash and other vegetables and your assertion that his meal did not provide a semblance of Protein is wrong and your notion that it lacked vitamins is even more wrong.

Again this was another contestant being scapegoated to save two others who had worse food for various reasons.



It amazes me how many peeps read a religious context into my comment. In this case, "using my name in vain" merely refers to (a)people using my name and things I've said for concepts that they were not intended for, (cool.gif misquoting and/or misinterpreting things I've said, © and/or using things I've said for their own gain. There was no Deity intended or involved.

Quickly, by paragraph. (1)The three dishes at J/T were, more or less, equally flawed, so there was no "worst" dish. Yet, the elimination was about the food; lousy curry and insufficient protein.

(2) So we agree that "off-putting" is not "inedible". Like I said, all three dishes had flaws.

(3) Exactly my point; while Casey's dish brought her to J/T, ultimately the dish that failed on concept (not Latin) was eliminated.

(4 + 5) I didn't say that the dish was unhealthy, nor that it lacked vitamins. But it was lacking in protein. While the vegetables were there, there was not the combination (like legumes and grain) that would make a complete protein. That was part of the concept of the challenge, and any "Top Chef" would have made sure there was sufficient protein in the dish, especially with Oprah's chef as one of the judges.

(6) Even if I agreed that the other two dishes were worse, (which I don't, as we really don't know how horrible Mark's curry was), neither was enough worse to single one of them out. Thus, concept of the challenge became the definitive factor. (see Joey, Howie, & Sandee.)

Bottom line, from my viewpoint, the decision had to be about the food; Mark would have been better for ratings than either of the women.

Now, back to reading at page 10!



Jazzie53
QUOTE (WhataJoke @ May 6, 2008 - 10:52 AM) *
Fair and Balanced as always Jazzie, You work for CNN?

wink.gif

laugh.gif
No....I don't think CNN could give me enough nap breaks! (or porch parties for that matter.)

Even after catching up on the reading....again, here's why this 10 dollars at the whole foods store leave me shaking my head.
Example:
Today....ok.....I have leftover baked porkchops with apples in the fridge. I had split peas in my pantry as well as my spices. I bought...1 onion, 1 potato, 2 packs of manager's special ground pork, one bag of coleslaw mix, and one bag of 50 cents day old sandwich rolls...all for dinner, then I added a few needed things.... a box of multi-grain saltines., a large carton of plain yogurt (for something else) and the kidlet's on sale chocolate bar. My grand total came to $13.65.

All this translates into tonights dinner...split peas with apples, cabbage, and pork; the rest of last night's salad on the side, plus pork-burgers with swiss cheese on the sandwich rolls.

The leftover split peas will then go into another day's dinner somewhere else in the week. I"m careful in my shopping....but couldn't meet the 10 dollar challenge for four unless.....I had lentils in the pantry (quickest-cooking of the high protein legumes) and based my meal around the lentils. But I'm just a middle-aged Mom, what do I know! Besides, most family meals, especially on a budget, incorporate leftovers, pantry items, and on sale specials. Half the time I am making up my menu for the day or the next day based on what I see on sale.

So....while I am glad they had one of the more realistic for TC challenges, it falls short (IMHO) of a reality dinner for four under $10.01!
Jazzie
*wink wink*
teleburst
QUOTE (bJason @ May 6, 2008 - 04:28 PM) *
In the state where I was a waiter, it was required that servers declared salered income plus 8% of individual gross sales - whether or not that percentage was made. I quit a job because I was required to tip-out such that I took home LESS than the 8% on which I was being taxed. When I approached my boss with this delimma she replied that that sucked but it was company policy (national chain).


I would have quit that job if my tipout was so high that I couldn't walk with even 8% of gross sales. I had a yooge tipout at my last job (45% of my actual tips went out the window) but I was still able to average between 10 and 12% of gross sales (I had a realistic average of about 18% overall and over time). My tipout was 7% of gross sales, which usually translated to that 45% figure. Currently, my tipout is more like 27% of actual tips (we don't tipout based on sales, which I think is the best way to do it), so my average is usually closer to 15% of gross sales, so I'm pretty happy. I'm still averaging about the same percentage but I keep far more money.

I don't know if it's illegal to use a firm number, but I assume that the IRS would definitely frown on that if they came in to audit. They want actual income reported, not estimated. This might have been a carryover from the days when everyone had to report at least 8% and that figure was rarely disputed, but the IRS started to require much more accurate reporting in the mid 90s because very few servers average only 8% even after tipout (you were an obvious exception). In fact, they require every server to keep a personal log of their tips, including all credit card and cash tips, how much and WHO you tip out to, etc. Most of us don't do it though. I don't worry about it, since I report every penny I make and if I get audited, I can easily show that I claim far higher than the threshold that the IRS probably looks for (they keep the number secret, but they've done a lot of statistical research about tipping habits and they can predict pretty closely what you should be reporting based soley on your credit card tips). Most people think that it falls in the 11 -13% area. Also, our restaurant is TRAC compliant, which is a tip agreement that the IRS makes with a restaurant. They agree not to routinely regularly audit in exchange for very close tracking of tips. We fill out what's called a TRAC sheet, which lists all of the sales and tip/tipout amounts at the end of every shift. And the final figure, our walking money, is what we declare when we clock out.

We don't have to declare our hourly wage because that's automatically reported on our paychecks and on our W2s
partsgirl
QUOTE (teleburst @ May 5, 2008 - 09:39 PM) *
More like 60K (if he's lucky).

Even 100k won't get you very far in Nashville, much less NYC. What's golden is just appearing on TC. That's what gets you investors, connections, etc.



People don't realize that you can't just walk into a bank and say, "I've got $60 grand to put into my own restaurant - please give me a business loan to finish my $250,000 restaurant (which is small change for a restaurant). It's not like putting 20% down on a house, or 20% down on a car in order to insure that you'll get financed. Unless you have a serious track record, you could put up 50% and they'd still laugh at you (behind your back, of course).

GE is one of the few venture capital companies (read banks) that will even back restaurant ventures and they want to see at least $10,000,000 and something like at least 4 units. And they are considered about the only "traditional" source of restaurant capital for "the little guys". There are some edgy "venture capital companies" that will take a chance, but they are few and far between. Most people looking to open new restaurants write off the idea of going to banks or the SBA.

About the only way to get capital for restaurants, is to go the private investor route. And those folks are more impressed with "I made it to round 4 on Top Chef" than, "I've got a check for $60k that I'm willing to throw in". They're more impressed because they are often times well-off "ordinary people" needing a place to park some money other than a CD in a bank. I imagine that opening a restaurant on Manhattan almost requires a bit of Star Power (just the cachet you get from even appearing for a couple of episodes on a show like Top Chef). Or, maybe Jeffery Chodorow can put in a good word for you.


huh.gif ... Ten Million?
actor59
QUOTE (Kristlkrost @ May 6, 2008 - 05:38 PM) *
OK tipping question??
My Chinese food was 32 and change...It was delivered..How much woud you all leave?

Don't lie and make me feel cheap
even though I am tongue.gif

I won't tell what I gave till youse guys do.
But I'm not cheap about tipping..It is very rare
that I tip under 20 %...Usually just or over.
But for buffets and to go???


I would of atleast tipped $5 gas prices you know are high... plus the convience as well...lol
partsgirl
QUOTE (dogabone @ May 6, 2008 - 12:30 PM) *
Well, mine's pretty obvious: Mother Hubbard's Cupboard. I'd go for a full line of old-fashioned comfort food—with no regard for fat and carb levels, cholesterol, or calorie counts.

And I'd just spoon the food onto the plate. Neatly, but no decorations, and no big, bare plate surfaces showing around tiny portions of food.



Testify, Sister!
partsgirl
QUOTE (actor59 @ May 6, 2008 - 07:25 PM) *
I would of atleast tipped $5 gas prices you know are high... plus the convience as well...lol



Yup, I'm with Actor. I used to deliver. Your job is to get the food to the customer's house warm and (hopefully) not tipped over/messy. 5-6 bucks is ok. When I lived in a more remote region I would tip higher as a way of saying thank you for delivering eventhough I live in BFE. Not to be an ass here, but you're delivering food. Not setting their table, refilling ice tea glasses, or removing empty dishes.
BreBaby
QUOTE (Kristlkrost @ May 6, 2008 - 05:38 PM) *
OK tipping question??
My Chinese food was 32 and change...It was delivered..How much woud you all leave?

Don't lie and make me feel cheap
even though I am tongue.gif

I won't tell what I gave till youse guys do.
But I'm not cheap about tipping..It is very rare
that I tip under 20 %...Usually just or over.
But for buffets and to go???


I was a waitress for a number of years, & loved it. I usually tip 20 to 25 percent, just because I know how much wait staff depends on their tips. For to-go orders, I usually don't tip anything, unless it's like a car-side service, & then just a couple bucks.
Buffets however. I absolutely dispised working buffets. No one thought they had to tip. However, the wait staff is still getting you your drink, checking up with you, & clearing plates. We still do just as much work, but NEVER get an tips for it. I tip fairly well during buffets just because I know how much they suck, haha.
SecondTry
So tomorrow night is Nikki's Restaurant, Take 2: I'm taking Dan and his boyfriend Peter out for dinner to celebrate Dan's show.

Will give a full review AFTER I watch my tape of Top Chef.
WhataJoke
QUOTE (Bed & Breakfast @ May 6, 2008 - 04:57 PM) *
It amazes me how many peeps read a religious context into my comment. In this case, "using my name in vain" merely refers to (a)people using my name and things I've said for concepts that they were not intended for, ( cool.gif misquoting and/or misinterpreting things I've said, © and/or using things I've said for their own gain. There was no Deity intended or involved.

Quickly, by paragraph. (1)The three dishes at J/T were, more or less, equally flawed, so there was no "worst" dish. Yet, the elimination was about the food; lousy curry and insufficient protein.

(2) So we agree that "off-putting" is not "inedible". Like I said, all three dishes had flaws.

(3) Exactly my point; while Casey's dish brought her to J/T, ultimately the dish that failed on concept (not Latin) was eliminated.

(4 + 5) I didn't say that the dish was unhealthy, nor that it lacked vitamins. But it was lacking in protein. While the vegetables were there, there was not the combination (like legumes and grain) that would make a complete protein. That was part of the concept of the challenge, and any "Top Chef" would have made sure there was sufficient protein in the dish, especially with Oprah's chef as one of the judges.

(6) Even if I agreed that the other two dishes were worse, (which I don't, as we really don't know how horrible Mark's curry was), neither was enough worse to single one of them out. Thus, concept of the challenge became the definitive factor. (see Joey, Howie, & Sandee.)

Bottom line, from my viewpoint, the decision had to be about the food; Mark would have been better for ratings than either of the women.

Now, back to reading at page 10!



1: Stephanies dish was easily the worst dish. It was so bad that the Judges were making EXCUSES for her or trying to find reasons why it was so bad. Again Padma said it was "disgusting" and she "detested" it. Not to mention she overcooked the cous cous. Disgusting and poor execution.

Lee Ann said Marks Curry wasn't great but it wasn't bad either. So your calling it lousy seems like a bit of an exageration.

2: When Another Judge says it was disgusting and she desteded it I'ts a good bet that "offputting" is a nice way to say nasty and it would also be damage control by Tom C. who clearly let past performace over rule the disaster at hand.

3: I thought your theory was "worst food goes"? There is realy no way that you can argue that Mark's was the worst. Mark also seemed to be the only chef that followed the rules of the challenge. But we know from last week that you don't need to follow the rules.

4/5: This was your quote from your Post.
"The other two dishes, though flawed, did provide at least some semblance of vitamins and proteins. His did not, thus he was eliminated, and it was for the food he prepared."

Sounds like your saying that it lacked vitamins to me.
And Part of the concept was to cook food for 10 dollars at Whole foods. Mark seems like the only person who followed the rules. How much would Stephanie's Whole Chicken have costed her? A "top chef" wouldn't make a dish that looked like peanut butter vomit with cous cous either laugh.gif A top chef doesn't have unseasoned food. You still havent explained how unseasoned food can be worse than mushy scaley gross looking salmon but better than average, nutritionaly nit picked curry. Take your time cause it's a tough nut to crack.


6: You would like to say that you don't know how bad the curry was but Lee Anne pretty much dispells that it was as bad as "disgusting" food that a judge "detested". Padma's silence in blog land pretty much confirms this.
Why do you think Padma has no blog this week? There is no possible way she could have justified keeping Stephanie and it's better for her to just not say anything further.

The bottom line is that many eliminations have been geared towards a payoff tomorrow night. Lisa vs. Dale round two. Again Producing reality TV isnt for you.
MicrowaveHo
QUOTE (WhataJoke @ May 6, 2008 - 08:04 AM) *
My point is that they both knew about it at the store but production forced them to go back and obviously address it with Tom during his spy mission around the kitchen. It was a situation that could and probably would have been delt with at the store but it was blown up into something far greater in the name of good tv.

Oh really? At what point did you see production rushing them into the cars and saying, "off we go!!! You guys are in BIIIIIG trouble now!!! I'm going to tell Tommy"

No, but seriously, do you know something I don't know based on some kind of blog or something?

Because as I saw it, Marissa narked on Otto to Tom. (Not the production staff.) To me, she was just as much at fault... because she knew they weren't paid for & left the premises.

Then she waited for an opportune time to bring it up to Elia & to Tom. (In order to make it appear that Otto was the only one who knew that they weren't paid for, when she knew it almost as soon as he did.)

Perhaps it was blown up for TV's sake... but you cannot deny that both Marissa & Otto knew that those lychees weren't paid for. Which makes them both shoplifters.

Had it been an innocent mistake, and that nobody actually knew that the lychees weren't paid for.... I would agree with you. But they DID know that they weren't paid for.
johnw
Deleted by johnw
ITSJUSTMEAOD
QUOTE (partsgirl @ May 3, 2008 - 10:48 AM) *

biggrin.gif

SHRUG

STILL GOTTA SAY

THIS WAS THE BEST FINALE TO ANY TETATET

YET laugh.gif

wink.gif

TAKE CARE OVER THERE

ALOHA

HAVE FUN
ITSJUSTMEAOD
QUOTE (MicrowaveHo @ May 6, 2008 - 03:05 AM) *
ZOMGZ is it Wed. yet?


laugh.gif

IS NOW MH....OVER THERE ANYWAYS laugh.gif


QUOTE
Today I was actually fascinated by a show on the history channel about the evolution of corn!!!!

Go ahead... ask me anything about corn... I am a semi-hobbling encyclopedia on the subject now.


YOU SURE MH?

OOOOOOOOOOOOO ..............K

HERE GOES ....................

WHY DID JIMMY CRACK CORN?

WHAT MADE JIMMY CRACK CORN?

WHAT KIND OF CORN DID JIMMY CRACK?

WHEN THE CORN CRACKED DID IT POP?

WHAT CAME FIRST THE KERNEL OR THE STALK?

WHO MADE THE FIRST CORN COB PIPE?

WHAT WAS SMOKED IN THAT CORN COB PIPE?

IS JIFFY POP STILL MADE?

laugh.gif

TAKE CARE OVER THERE

ALOHA

HAVE FUN
ITSJUSTMEAOD
QUOTE (MicrowaveHo @ May 6, 2008 - 11:51 PM) *
Oh really? At what point did you see production rushing them into the cars and saying, "off we go!!! You guys are in BIIIIIG trouble now!!! I'm going to tell Tommy"

No, but seriously, do you know something I don't know based on some kind of blog or something?

Because as I saw it, Marissa narked on Otto to Tom. (Not the production staff.) To me, she was just as much at fault... because she knew they weren't paid for & left the premises.

Then she waited for an opportune time to bring it up to Elia & to Tom. (In order to make it appear that Otto was the only one who knew that they weren't paid for, when she knew it almost as soon as he did.)

Perhaps it was blown up for TV's sake... but you cannot deny that both Marissa & Otto knew that those lychees weren't paid for. Which makes them both shoplifters.

Had it been an innocent mistake, and that nobody actually knew that the lychees weren't paid for.... I would agree with you. But they DID know that they weren't paid for.


HI MH


HOPE YOU DON'T MIND ME TOSSIN A BONE

ON THAT CARCASS EVERYONE SEEMS TO

BE BEATIN.............

IT WAS THE CAMERA MANS FAULT laugh.gif

HE SAW EVERYTHING.......................

FILMED THE WHOLE SHEBANG..... CART.....CART THROUGH CHECKOUT.......

CRATE BEIN LOADED IN CAR.......UNLOADED FROM CAR

PLACED UNDER STEPS laugh.gif

PROB WOULD HAVE SQUEELED IN DUE TIME

BUT WAITED FOR THE DRAMA TO BUILD.......

HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

KINDA SORTA MAKES WAJ'S TAKE ........OK

BUT FROM OUR POINT OF VIEW AS OBSERVERS...

IT'S BEEN HASHED OUT SEVERAL TIMES

AND THE CONCLUSION FAVORS YOU MH

HECK THIS IS SEASON 4

THOUGH PAST SEASONS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED

IN THREADS BEFORE

JUST SEEMS THIS SEASON ....EPISODES HAVE LOST THIER LUSTER

PRETTY FAST laugh.gif

JAFO biggrin.gif

TAKE CARE OVER THERE

ALOHA

HAVE FUN
johnw
QUOTE (MicrowaveHo @ May 6, 2008 - 03:18 AM) *

Yeah but the point being that Otto kNEW the lychees wern't paid for. In my mind this makes him a shop-lifter.

If there is something at the bottom of your cart that you aren't going to lift up to the cashiers awareness, or at least tell them about, and then you knew that they weren't paid for: that makes you a shoplifter.

He knew it when they had left the store, which gave him time to go back & pay for them. I hold Marissa just as responsible... as she knew it when he told her, yet she didn't go back & pay for them.


ALL the chefs knew the lychees weren't paid for, even the store employee who helped load groceries into the SUV. Does that make all of them shoplifters as you imply because they knew about it? So why was Otto made to take the rap as being a shoplifter? That cart you refer to was Elia's, not Otto's. It's hard to believe that she didn't know about the case of lychee's which were quite visible when all of her other groceries were being tallied and bagged by the cashier.

As far as going back and paying for the lychees, that is exactly what Marissa wanted to do when Otto made his announcement about the free lychees. For some reason, production put the kibosh on Marissa's suggestion about paying for the lychees. The next thing we know, Marissa is whispering in Colicchio's ear about Otto and the lychees. As WAJ said, Otto got hosed - probably by production.
ITSJUSTMEAOD
QUOTE (johnw @ May 7, 2008 - 04:14 AM) *
ALL the chefs knew the lychees weren't paid for, even the store employee who helped load groceries into the SUV. Does that make all of them shoplifters as you imply because they knew about it? So why was Otto made to take the rap as being a shoplifter? That cart you refer to was Elia's, not Otto's. It's hard to believe that she didn't know about the case of lychee's which were quite visible when all of her other groceries were being tallied and bagged by the cashier.

As far as going back and paying for the lychees, that is exactly what Marissa wanted to do when Otto made his announcement about the free lychees. For some reason, production put the kibosh on Marissa's suggestion about paying for the lychees. The next thing we know, Marissa is whispering in Colicchio's ear about Otto and the lychees. As WAJ said, Otto got hosed - probably by production.

HI JOHN

GONNA TOSS A FEW WHISPS OF DUST ON THE CARCASS

NAH THE BAG BOY DIDN'T KNOW

NOT THIER JOB TO WATCH THE REGISTER

AND NAH OTTO DIDN'T GET HOSED

HE WAS THE ONE WHO EXCLAIMED "WE DIDN'T PAY FOR THE LYCHEES"

AFTER THEY CLOSE THE LIFTGATE

NOW REALLY TILL THAT POINT

THE WHOLE THING WAS NOTICED BY ONLY ONE

OTHER PERSON

THE CAMERAMAN

AND MARISSA AS WELL AS SOME OF THE OTHERS

DIDN'T KNOW TILL INSIDE THE VAN

TO WHICH THIS CONTROVERSY GAINS LIFE..

NOW

WHEN THE ISSUE CAME INTO VIEW BY TOM

FINGERS POINTED TO OTTO

SHRUG

SUCH IS LIFE

IT CAN BE SPECULATED FOR ETERNITY

WETHER OTTO COULD HAVE DONE THE RIGHT THING

AT THE MARKET.........

BUT IT PLAYED OUT DIFFERENTLY

HE DID THE CRIME.......PAYED THE FINE

AND MAY I NOTE THIS IS ALL FROM MEMORY

DIDN'T NEED TO GO RESEARCH PAST HISTORY

AS IT REALLY ISN'T WORTH IT

AS THE CONTESTANTS WEREN'T THAT GREAT THAT SEASON EITHER

AND HAVE PROB GOTTEN ALONG WITH THIER LIVES

WHY PEEPS DIGRESS

ONE WILL NEVER KNOW

LIKE I SAID BEFORE

RIGHT NOW IT ISN'T ABOUT THE FOOD

IT'S ABOUT THE PEEPS

AND THE DRAMATICS PROVIDED FOR US

TAKE CARE OVER THERE

ALOHA

HAVE FUN
ITSJUSTMEAOD
QUOTE (MicrowaveHo @ May 6, 2008 - 03:18 AM) *

Yeah but the point being that Otto kNEW the lychees wern't paid for. In my mind this makes him a shop-lifter.

If there is something at the bottom of your cart that you aren't going to lift up to the cashiers awareness, or at least tell them about, and then you knew that they weren't paid for: that makes you a shoplifter.

He knew it when they had left the store, which gave him time to go back & pay for them. I hold Marissa just as responsible... as she knew it when he told her, yet she didn't go back & pay for them.


HERE'S A NEW PONY ON THIS SUBJECT

ANYONE EVER WONDER HOW THIS INCIDENT

HARMED THE INTEGRITY OF THE SHOW?

IF TC EVER FILMS IN THE AREA AGAIN

WILL THAT MARKET ALLOW THEM TO SHOP THERE AGAIN?

DOES ANYONE THINK TC NOW HAS SAFEGUARDS SET

SO IT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN?

IF IT DOES .....WILL THEY ALLOW THE CONTESTANT....S TO BE PROSICUTED?

I KNOW NO ONE WILL ANSWER THIS

BUT THESE ARE THE REAL ISSUES PRODUCERS WILL HAVE OR HAD TO FACE

AND

NO ONE REALLY KNOWS biggrin.gif

TAKE CARE OVER THERE

ALOHA

HAVE FUN
teleburst
QUOTE (partsgirl @ May 6, 2008 - 06:25 PM) *
huh.gif ... Ten Million?


In sales.
teleburst
QUOTE (WhataJoke @ May 6, 2008 - 11:08 PM) *

1: Stephanies dish was easily the worst dish. It was so bad that the Judges were making EXCUSES for her or trying to find reasons why it was so bad. Again Padma said it was "disgusting" and she "detested" it. Not to mention she overcooked the cous cous. Disgusting and poor execution.


It wasn't "easily" the worst dish. They were both bad.

I note that nowhere do you mention the children, who clearly didn't like the curry AT ALL, regardless of Mark's delusions that both they and Tom "dug" it. And they liked the curry the least. Therefore, it can be argued that it was "easily" the worst dish.

This is exactly the reason why you have to take other factors into consideration. If I had been a judge, I'm pretty sure I would have found the curry disgusting based only on the flavor profile (although I'm baffled as to why Padma didn't mention it - probably the ole editing bugaboo). I'm also glad that all of the judges' feelings were taken into account, not just one's. And wasn't it you who's insisted that bland is a horrible sin and makes a dish deserve to send a CT packing? See, that's the reason you can't have a cut and dried criterion for "worst food". There are a gaggle of sins that can be considered. And Mark's dish was called out by Tom saying that the curry "wasn't appealing on so many different levels". If you can interpret "offputting" the way you do, I'd argue that saying that phrase is a nice way of saying "disgusting". It was also "sloppy". And Gail said, "Compared to what everyone (my emphasis) else made tonight, Mark's dish was so lacking" (her emphasis).

Had the kids liked it, Mark probably wouldn't have gone home (see the "Make the target audience happy or else" corollary). Had Mark not been a perennial underperformer, he probably wouldn't have gone home (see the "Stephanie" corollary). Had he not made a bad dish, he probably wouldn't have gone home (see the "Don't make it to JT" corollary). Had he not understood what you should do to make a truly nutritious vegetarian dish, he probably wouldn't have gone home (see the "Meet the challenge head on" corollary). Had he not been somewhat delusional, he probably wouldn't have gone home (not sure what corollary this is, but let's officially call it the "Mark" corollary from now on). Since he met none of those conditions, he went home. Not that difficult.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2009 Invision Power Services, Inc.