M&M wrote:

> First she boiled the ribs to death in beef broth and then she
> soaked them completely in sweet sauce. How there could have been
> any vestige of rib taste left is beyond me. I can't imagine a
> more complete waste of Baby Backs.

I know what you're talking about, there's a tendency among
many to believe a *lot* of flavor is good, without really
thinking about what the flavors are. There are numerous
examples of this in food and drink, too many to count.

Like, I've had a lot of really bad espresso because
people think that over-roasting makes the coffee taste
better - because they're confusing *strong* flavor
with *good* flavor.

Over-seasoning, over-salting, over-sweetening, over-doing
it in general. It's all the same trend, confusing a lot
of flavor with good flavor. It might even show up sometimes
as over-smoked ;-). Winemakers will over-oak, over-malo-lactic,
over-ripen, and make a wine that's intensely flavored and
get huge ratings from the pundits... even if the wine
overpowers you after a glass.

Boiling baby backs in beef broth and then soaking in
sweet sauce... over-salting, over-sweetening, completely
replacing the flavor of the ribs with strong flavors from
other ingredients. People eat it and they think "wow!
this sure has a lot of flavor!".

It's the same tendency I see in people to immediately reach
for the salt and pepper and douse their food without first
tasting it. The same tendency to shake Tabasco sauce all
over a meal without trying it first. Pouring steak sauce,
or, worse yet, ketchup on a nicely grilled steak. On and on.

That tendency is what drives the creation of such two-dimensional
recipes like boiled/sugared ribs.

I'm always pleased when I serve Q naked, and offer sauce on
the side, and people *try the Q* first... invariably, they
eschew the sauce completely or use it sparingly.

Cheers,
Dana