Victor Sack wrote:

> Default User > wrote:
>
> > Victor Sack wrote:

> > > It gives a range of textures. It may not be to one's preference,
> > > but strange it ain't, at least not to me. I'm reminded of
> > > gazpacho, which often consists of puréed or very finely chopped
> > > vegetables, as well as the same vegetables diced.
> >
> > We're talking about chili, not gazpacho. Large variations in
> > texture is not normally considered a plus.
>
> You are kind of contradicting yourself. First, you say you find it
> strange to have different textures in chili; now you say it is not
> normally considered a plus. If it is strange, then who has been
> considering all those textures for pluses or minuses and defining them
> as normal or not? Are you sure you are not mixing up personal
> expectations or preferences and statistics?

There's two things:

1. My personal reaction the texture.

2. The general standard for the dish.

It could well be that in general, a variation in texture is considered
a plus, but that I don't personally care for it. However, in this case
I am agreeing with the general consensus (or at least what I perceive
to be the general consensus).



Brian


--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)