guy klose wrote:
> writes:
> >Well, I am a certified chili freak.
> >I was born and raised in SE Texas, and loved all the various kinds of
> >chili we had.
> >I later moved to Cincinnati to attend grad school there.
> >Of course I tried the Skyline Chili, and I loved it.
> >It is totally different from any chili in Texas, with an entirely
> >different flavor.
> >There is no sense in comparing the two.
>
> A sensible opinion :-), I see.
>
> Cincinnati chili is a Greek-style meat sauce served over spaghetti
> or hot dogs. It is not, and never was intended to be, a replacement
> for Texas chili, chili con carne, etc. It is a completely different
> food item; some people love it, some hate it.
>
> To get hung up on the name is ridiculous. [snip]
Yeah, but language is supposed to communicate meaning, food names
included. If I make lasagna and call it chocolate mousse the lasagna
may taste good but I have misled whoever heard me say mousse. This is
not the old argument about so-called 'authenticity,' it's just a plea
to avoid misleading terms. If they called it "Greek style meat sauce
for spaghetti" I'd have no quibble coming (even if I don't like its
taste), but slapping the "chili" label on something it barely resembles
was deceptive, whether intended to be or not. Hence my calling it
"fake." -aem