Quite often I will watch cooking shows on the food channel and wonder
is food presentation really worth it? I mean, you take a little food,
encircle it with a few lines of some sauce and you have a pretty
plate. But who could be satisfied with those small amounts? And I mean
small amounts!

I, personally, like a plate that is packed with food. I like it where
there is no space left and the food almost falls off the plate. If I
want art, I'll go to the museum.

It's late and I'm going to have my SlimFast meal replacement. I often
wonder where these extra pounds come from...



Mark Anthony Ferrante

FERRANTE writes:

>Quite often I will watch cooking shows on the food channel and wonder
>is food presentation really worth it? I mean, you take a little food,
>encircle it with a few lines of some sauce and you have a pretty
>plate. But who could be satisfied with those small amounts? And I mean
>small amounts!
>
>I, personally, like a plate that is packed with food. I like it where
>there is no space left and the food almost falls off the plate. If I
>want art, I'll go to the museum.
>
>It's late and I'm going to have my SlimFast meal replacement. I often
>wonder where these extra pounds come from...

I bet if I looked in your freezer I'd find your personal 2qt ice cream bowl.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

FERRANTE wrote:

> It's late and I'm going to have my SlimFast meal replacement. I often
> wonder where these extra pounds come from...


Sorry excuse for a meal replacement... Might as well drink Yoohoo...

http://www.vpxsports.com/micellean_b..._superfood.htm

Check your local health food store...

~john!

>Quite often I will watch cooking shows on the food channel and wonder
>is food presentation really worth it? I mean, you take a little food,
>encircle it with a few lines of some sauce and you have a pretty
>plate. But who could be satisfied with those small amounts? And I mean
>small amounts!

I'm more of a grazer (not a cow!), so the small amounts don't bother me. And I
like how Japanese and other chefs adorn the plates. The color contrasts can
look very nice on a plate. At the simplest, you can put some sliced boiled egg
rounds, paprika and chopped chives on a potato salad. I sort of like to make
little garnishes, though I don't do too many fancy things.

>I, personally, like a plate that is packed with food. I like it where
>there is no space left and the food almost falls off the plate. If I
>want art, I'll go to the museum.

There's nothing wrong with that. My husband likes to fill his plate like that,
too.
But he doesn't mind any garnish.

>It's late and I'm going to have my SlimFast meal replacement. I often
>wonder where these extra pounds come from...
>
>
>
>Mark Anthony Ferrante
>

rharps.com

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:08:28 -0400, FERRANTE
> wrote:

>Quite often I will watch cooking shows on the food channel and wonder
>is food presentation really worth it? I mean, you take a little food,
>encircle it with a few lines of some sauce and you have a pretty
>plate. But who could be satisfied with those small amounts? And I mean
>small amounts!
>
>I, personally, like a plate that is packed with food. I like it where
>there is no space left and the food almost falls off the plate. If I
>want art, I'll go to the museum.

And you'll usually pay a high premium for those small, artsy portions.

You want artsy? For $6.95 at Golden Coral you can dress your palette
with 60 kinds of food. Build whatever you want.

-sw

FERRANTE > wrote in message >. ..
> Quite often I will watch cooking shows on the food channel and wonder
> is food presentation really worth it? I mean, you take a little food,
> encircle it with a few lines of some sauce and you have a pretty
> plate. But who could be satisfied with those small amounts? And I mean
> small amounts!

I don't mind the small portions. What I do mind is paying $40/plate
(or more) for them...

-L.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:08:28 -0400, FERRANTE
> wrote:

>Quite often I will watch cooking shows on the food channel and wonder
>is food presentation really worth it? I mean, you take a little food,
>encircle it with a few lines of some sauce and you have a pretty
>plate.

For one thing, when I visit a restaurant, I *expect* things to look a
little more glamorous than they do at home. And at home, particularly
when cooking for others, I believe a little garnish makes a dish more
attractive. It doesn't take long to shave a few curls of Parmesean on
top of a salad, or poke a fresh mint sprig into a dish of fruit. OTOH,
when I see those elaborate 'architectural' processes on TV shows, I
keep thinking, yes, it's pretty, but by the time it gets to the table,
it'll be stone cold!

>But who could be satisfied with those small amounts? And I mean
>small amounts!
>I, personally, like a plate that is packed with food. I like it where
>there is no space left and the food almost falls off the plate. If I
>want art, I'll go to the museum.

Given that one reason given for the obesity epidemic in the US is the
ever-growing size of portions, you might want to spend a *lot* of time
walking around museums. :-) And jogging through sculpture gardens,
too.

There's a current TV ad for a line of frozen dinners with the tag line
"there's nothing bad about feeling full," in spite of long-time advice
to push away from the table *before* you're comatose.

Steve LowIQ Sqwertz writes:
>
>For $6.95 at Golden Coral you can dress your palette
>with 60 kinds of food.

Somehow I bet that should be Golden *Corral*.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:59:29 GMT, "Jack Schidt®"
> wrote:

>I'm with you. Out of the couple dozen or so restaurants within a 20 minute
>drive from here, only 1 offers half portions, and even those are pretty
>generous. I like feeling sated and not stuffed to where I'm sitting there
>pole-axed. I wish more places would offer a reduced portion option.

You know, besides those of us who would like at least normal (small by
today's measure) portions (I would like to be able to eat the whole
meal and not be near comatose as well)...there are other folks for
whom this would make sense...

In my experience, many more mature (ok, elderly) folks aren't up to
consuming football (american or otherwise)-sized burritos, or dinners
that come not on a plate, but on a serving platter.

FWIW, in my area, even the somewhat nicer restaurants are more "family
friendly". Now a lot of little tykes enjoy a grilled cheese, "chicken
fingers, etc., that are the normal child's fare at restaurants...OTOH,
slightly older children (or younger ones that are adventerous enough)
probably would like the opportunity to have a "real" meal from the
resaurant. Given serving/price systems now, this means you cough up a
fair amount of $$$ for something the kid, even if they like it, won't
be able to finish.

Seems to me, offering a smaller-portion option on most/all menu
selections would be an excellent way of promoting a little more food
"adventure" among the younger crowd, and healthier, less expensive
options for the rest of us who don't need to be completely bloated to
call dinner a success.

Bob

"FERRANTE" > wrote in message
...
> Quite often I will watch cooking shows on the food channel and wonder
> is food presentation really worth it? I mean, you take a little food,
> encircle it with a few lines of some sauce and you have a pretty
> plate. But who could be satisfied with those small amounts? And I mean
> small amounts!
>
> I, personally, like a plate that is packed with food. I like it where
> there is no space left and the food almost falls off the plate. If I
> want art, I'll go to the museum.
>
> It's late and I'm going to have my SlimFast meal replacement. I often
> wonder where these extra pounds come from...
>

A friend of mine would, at a buffet restaurant, perform the most amazing
feats of engineering in piling his plate high with a veritable tower of
food. I asked why he did this - didn't he know he could go back as many
times as he wanted? His answer: I am on a diet and am allowed only one plate
of food.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:08:28 -0400, FERRANTE wrote:

> Quite often I will watch cooking shows on the food channel and wonder
> is food presentation really worth it? <Snip>
>
> Mark Anthony Ferrante

IMO a meal in a restaurant, or at home, begins with the service,
surroundings, decore and continues through the visual effect of the dish
and the taste of the dish. All of these things and more contribute to the
experience and all are important, some things more than others. And yes I
prefer small portions and almost always ask for a small portion.
Unfortunately it usually takes several visits to a restaurant before the
wait staff will actually see that I get the size portions that I want.

Why do I like small portions, first if it is on my plate I am probably
going to eat it, although I am learning to show some restraint. And then I
go away feeling overfull and uncomfortable, not the way I prefer to end a
dining experience.

JakeInHartsel

"Glenn Jacobs" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:08:28 -0400, FERRANTE wrote:
>
> > Quite often I will watch cooking shows on the food channel and wonder
> > is food presentation really worth it? <Snip>
> >
> > Mark Anthony Ferrante
>
> IMO a meal in a restaurant, or at home, begins with the service,
> surroundings, decore and continues through the visual effect of the dish
> and the taste of the dish. All of these things and more contribute to the
> experience and all are important, some things more than others. And yes I
> prefer small portions and almost always ask for a small portion.
> Unfortunately it usually takes several visits to a restaurant before the
> wait staff will actually see that I get the size portions that I want.
>
> Why do I like small portions, first if it is on my plate I am probably
> going to eat it, although I am learning to show some restraint. And then
I
> go away feeling overfull and uncomfortable, not the way I prefer to end a
> dining experience.
>

I'm with you. Out of the couple dozen or so restaurants within a 20 minute
drive from here, only 1 offers half portions, and even those are pretty
generous. I like feeling sated and not stuffed to where I'm sitting there
pole-axed. I wish more places would offer a reduced portion option.

Jack Fed

"Glenn Jacobs" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:08:28 -0400, FERRANTE wrote:
>
> > Quite often I will watch cooking shows on the food channel and wonder
> > is food presentation really worth it? <Snip>
> >
> > Mark Anthony Ferrante
>
> IMO a meal in a restaurant, or at home, begins with the service,
> surroundings, decore and continues through the visual effect of the dish
> and the taste of the dish. All of these things and more contribute to the
> experience and all are important, some things more than others. And yes I
> prefer small portions and almost always ask for a small portion.
> Unfortunately it usually takes several visits to a restaurant before the
> wait staff will actually see that I get the size portions that I want.
>
> Why do I like small portions, first if it is on my plate I am probably
> going to eat it, although I am learning to show some restraint. And then
I
> go away feeling overfull and uncomfortable, not the way I prefer to end a
> dining experience.
>
> JakeInHartsel

I agree - enjoying a meal is about a lot more than the quantity of food.
There does seem to be a pervasive "more is better" belief. I cannot tell you
how many times I have had trouble at ice cream stands where a "small" cone
is usually two huge scoops. When I ask for less the server often gets
suspicious, like I am up to something sneaky. "You still have to ay the
regular price" is what I often hear. Sheesh!


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

Frogleg > wrote in message >. ..
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 21:08:28 -0400, FERRANTE
> > wrote:
>
> >Quite often I will watch cooking shows on the food channel and wonder
> >is food presentation really worth it? I mean, you take a little food,
> >encircle it with a few lines of some sauce and you have a pretty
> >plate.
>
> For one thing, when I visit a restaurant, I *expect* things to look a
> little more glamorous than they do at home. And at home, particularly
> when cooking for others, I believe a little garnish makes a dish more
> attractive. It doesn't take long to shave a few curls of Parmesean on
> top of a salad, or poke a fresh mint sprig into a dish of fruit. OTOH,
> when I see those elaborate 'architectural' processes on TV shows, I
> keep thinking, yes, it's pretty, but by the time it gets to the table,
> it'll be stone cold!
>
> >But who could be satisfied with those small amounts? And I mean
> >small amounts!
> >I, personally, like a plate that is packed with food. I like it where
> >there is no space left and the food almost falls off the plate. If I
> >want art, I'll go to the museum.
>
> Given that one reason given for the obesity epidemic in the US is the
> ever-growing size of portions, you might want to spend a *lot* of time
> walking around museums. :-) And jogging through sculpture gardens,
> too.
>
> There's a current TV ad for a line of frozen dinners with the tag line
> "there's nothing bad about feeling full," in spite of long-time advice
> to push away from the table *before* you're comatose.


I tried "plating" my dinners for the family but I found that it was
unavailing. Every thing is put in serving dishes with some diced
parsley sprinkled over for garnish. I save my artistic prowess for
the the desserts.

"Jack Schidt®" > writes:

> Out of the couple dozen or so restaurants within a 20 minute
>drive from here, only 1 offers half portions, and even those are pretty
>generous. I like feeling sated and not stuffed to where I'm sitting there
>pole-axed. I wish more places would offer a reduced portion option.
>
>Jack Fed-eral

Then they'd have to offer a reduced price option, which would in effect,
considering that actual food is their least costly element of running a
restaurant, put the fine-dining restaurant out of business and into Chapter
11... perhaps yoose portion quantity affectionados should revisit the "Sm.,
Med., Lg." fast food dining experience.

And then again I've not ever noticed where fine-dining restaurants offer very
large portions... perhaps yoose is speaking of the Fercoctah Family Chains.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

On 22 Oct 2003 15:57:50 GMT, PENMART01 wrote:

> "Jack Schidt®" > writes:
>
>> Out of the couple dozen or so restaurants within a 20 minute
>>drive from here, only 1 offers half portions, and even those are pretty
>>generous. I like feeling sated and not stuffed to where I'm sitting there
>>pole-axed. I wish more places would offer a reduced portion option.
>>
>>Jack Fed-eral
>
> Then they'd have to offer a reduced price option, which would in effect,
> considering that actual food is their least costly element of running a
> restaurant, put the fine-dining restaurant out of business and into Chapter
> 11... perhaps yoose portion quantity affectionados should revisit the "Sm.,
> Med., Lg." fast food dining experience.
>
> And then again I've not ever noticed where fine-dining restaurants offer very
> large portions... perhaps yoose is speaking of the Fercoctah Family Chains.
>
No, I don't mind the paying the full cost and getting less. That is better
than paying the full cost and throwing half of the food away.

JakeInHartsel

"PENMART01" > wrote in message
...
> "Jack Schidt®" > writes:
>
> > Out of the couple dozen or so restaurants within a 20 minute
> >drive from here, only 1 offers half portions, and even those are pretty
> >generous. I like feeling sated and not stuffed to where I'm sitting
there
> >pole-axed. I wish more places would offer a reduced portion option.
> >
> >Jack Fed-eral
>
> Then they'd have to offer a reduced price option, which would in effect,
> considering that actual food is their least costly element of running a
> restaurant, put the fine-dining restaurant out of business and into
Chapter
> 11... perhaps yoose portion quantity affectionados should revisit the
"Sm.,
> Med., Lg." fast food dining experience.
>
> And then again I've not ever noticed where fine-dining restaurants offer
very
> large portions... perhaps yoose is speaking of the Fercoctah Family
Chains.
>
>

You're right, the fried clams at HoJo's are wayyy to big for me to finish.

Jack Carvel

(-L.) wrote in message om>...
> FERRANTE > wrote in message >. ..
> > Quite often I will watch cooking shows on the food channel and wonder
> > is food presentation really worth it? I mean, you take a little food,
> > encircle it with a few lines of some sauce and you have a pretty
> > plate. But who could be satisfied with those small amounts? And I mean
> > small amounts!
>
> I don't mind the small portions. What I do mind is paying $40/plate
> (or more) for them...
>
> -L.
During my being entertained days-remember a lot of way oversized
plates with a dab of this and that and drizzled with something spread
all over this huge plate. You leave the place with a empty stomach
and wallet-or the guy paying does. To each their own but NFW for me.

Glenn Jacobs writes:

> PENMART01 wrote:
>
>> "Jack Schidt®" > writes:
>>
>>> Out of the couple dozen or so restaurants within a 20 minute
>>>drive from here, only 1 offers half portions, and even those are pretty
>>>generous. I like feeling sated and not stuffed to where I'm sitting there
>>>pole-axed. I wish more places would offer a reduced portion option.
>>>
>>>Jack Fed-eral
>>
>> Then they'd have to offer a reduced price option, which would in effect,
>> considering that actual food is their least costly element of running a
>> restaurant, put the fine-dining restaurant out of business and into Chapter
>> 11... perhaps yoose portion quantity affectionados should revisit the "Sm.,
>> Med., Lg." fast food dining experience.
>>
>> And then again I've not ever noticed where fine-dining restaurants offer
>very
>> large portions... perhaps yoose is speaking of the Fercoctah Family Chains.
>>
>No, I don't mind the paying the full cost and getting less.

Yeah, right.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

JakeInHartsel wrote:

> Why do I like small portions, first if it is on my plate I am probably
> going to eat it, although I am learning to show some restraint. And then
> I go away feeling overfull and uncomfortable, not the way I prefer to end
> a dining experience.

One way to get the most out of your dining experience is to pace it
properly. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of eating at Aqua in Las
Vegas. The portions were small, but the courses were presented at just the
right intervals. The effect this has is to fill your stomach slowly, so
that you feel full even though you haven't eaten all that much. (Aqua's a
great restaurant, by the way: The food is wonderful and the service is
world-class.)

Bob

In article >, Glenn Jacobs
> wrote:

> Why do I like small portions, first if it is on my plate I am
> probably going to eat it, although I am learning to show some
> restraint. And then I go away feeling overfull and uncomfortable,
> not the way I prefer to end a dining experience.

Not to mention, at least at a home, you can always get seconds if you
are still hungry.

I am pretty proud of my efforts at reducing my portion size. Monday,
we were supposed to go out with some people on the field at the airport
where Rich works, they wanted to take him (and me) out to thank him for
his efforts with them and the airport. They ended up having an
energency issue, and dinner fell through. Well, we had the babysitter,
we had a buy one get one coupon for a more expensive restaurant in our
town, and we thought we might as well go out together anyway.

We split an apetizer, each had salads and our meals. Rich got the
garlic roasted crab which was caught locally that morning, and I got
some alder planked wild salmon which was flown in that morning from
Alaska (they weren't sure if it were caught that morning or the day
before). When I received my meal, I realized that about a third of it
would have been enough for me to eat, so I filled up on the veggies,
butternut squash, zucchini & red pepper, and ate part of the salmon
(which was exquisite) and a few bites of the smashed yukon golds. Took
the rest home, no dessert. I was full, the food was enjoyable, and I
had a nice lunch the next day which I was able to share with my
children.

Regards,
Ranee

--
Remove do not and spam to e-mail me.

"The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of
heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by man." Acts 17:24

On 22 Oct 2003 13:15:07 -0500, "Bob" > wrote:

>JakeInHartsel wrote:
>
>> Why do I like small portions, first if it is on my plate I am probably
>> going to eat it, although I am learning to show some restraint. And then
>> I go away feeling overfull and uncomfortable, not the way I prefer to end
>> a dining experience.
>
>One way to get the most out of your dining experience is to pace it
>properly. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of eating at Aqua in Las
>Vegas. The portions were small, but the courses were presented at just the
>right intervals. The effect this has is to fill your stomach slowly, so
>that you feel full even though you haven't eaten all that much. (Aqua's a
>great restaurant, by the way: The food is wonderful and the service is
>world-class.)

I find this interesting. Even a seeming proponent of moderate portions
is waiting for a large cumulative amount of food to "feel full." I
was with a group of previously unacquainted people a couple of years
ago and listened to one rave about a new restaurant in town. She and
fellow diners had had "huge plates" full of food. They'd all taken
home enough for at least another meal. This woman talked glowingly for
15 minutes about the *quantity* of food, without ever mentioning the
taste or what was offered/eaten. Her delight was entirely focussed on
huge portions of...something.

I may be out of step, but my desire, when I eat out, is neither
bringing home a bag of leftovers, nor walking out of a restaurant
feeling like a python that's swallowed a goat.

To me, "feeling full" is usually a negative aspect of dining. On the
order of "I can't believe I ate the whole thing." A desire to lie down
for a couple of hours, or guilt for stuffing myself doesn't make me
think fondly of the meal I've just consumed. I'm pretty sure, no,
absolutely sure, that my daily caloric needs will be met by moderate
or even smallish (i.e., recommended) portions of delightful
well-prepared food.

I will complain as fast as any (faster, I think) about ill-prepared
food, or "clam chowder" made without visible pieces of clam, or
overcooked beef, but unless a 20oz steak is advertised on the menu and
turns out to be a 4oz lump, portion size is not something I'd argue
about.

On 22 Oct 2003 11:52:27 GMT, anal retentive
(PENMART01) wrote:

>Steve Sqwertz writes:
>>
>>For $6.95 at Golden Coral you can dress your palette
>>with 60 kinds of food.
>
>Somehow I bet that should be Golden *Corral*.

Thanks, typo nazi. You can be my little puppy dog that follows nme
around fixing all my typos, as obviously I already know how to spell
it.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=we...oe=UTF-8&hl=en

-sw

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:42:44 GMT, wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 14:59:29 GMT, "Jack Schidt®"
> wrote:
>
>>I'm with you. Out of the couple dozen or so restaurants within a 20 minute
>>drive from here, only 1 offers half portions, and even those are pretty
>>generous. I like feeling sated and not stuffed to where I'm sitting there
>>pole-axed. I wish more places would offer a reduced portion option.
>
>You know, besides those of us who would like at least normal (small by
>today's measure) portions (I would like to be able to eat the whole
>meal and not be near comatose as well)...there are other folks for
>whom this would make sense...
>
>In my experience, many more mature (ok, elderly) folks aren't up to
>consuming football (american or otherwise)-sized burritos, or dinners
>that come not on a plate, but on a serving platter.
>
>FWIW, in my area, even the somewhat nicer restaurants are more "family
>friendly". Now a lot of little tykes enjoy a grilled cheese, "chicken
>fingers, etc., that are the normal child's fare at restaurants...OTOH,
>slightly older children (or younger ones that are adventerous enough)
>probably would like the opportunity to have a "real" meal from the
>resaurant. Given serving/price systems now, this means you cough up a
>fair amount of $$$ for something the kid, even if they like it, won't
>be able to finish.
>
>Seems to me, offering a smaller-portion option on most/all menu
>selections would be an excellent way of promoting a little more food
>"adventure" among the younger crowd, and healthier, less expensive
>options for the rest of us who don't need to be completely bloated to
>call dinner a success.
>
>Bob

Bob Pastorio should weigh in on this since he's got all the years of
actual restaurant experience.

I'm sure there are thousands of restaurants in the country that would
go over to reduced portion sizes if they thought there was enough of a
market to make it worth their while. I suspect the reason that many
of them don't is the associated non-food costs that doing this would
be out of proportion to the actual number of meals served.

I like a good presentation on the plate, it can do a lot to make the
food more appealing. But first and last I'd better be able to walk
out of that restaurant feeling like I got my money's worth of actual
food in the stomach. I don't mean gorging at some all-you-can-eat
place, but just a decent meal on the plate. Slowly, but surely as I
get older I am *trying* to eat less at a sitting, but the few times
that I've been talked into nouveau cuisine I came away feeling like
I'd spent a couple hours pay for a snack. It was very nicely
presented, but a snack nonetheless.

......Alan.


--
Curiosity killed the cat -
lack of it is killing mankind.

Steve Squwertz > writes:

>(PENMART01) wrote:
>
>>Steve Sqwertz writes:
>>>
>>>For $6.95 at Golden Coral you can dress your palette
>>>with 60 kinds of food.
>>
>>Somehow I bet that should be Golden *Corral*.
>
>Thanks, typo nazi. You can be my little puppy dog that follows nme
>around fixing all my typos, as obviously I already know how to spell
>it.
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=we...oe=UTF-8&hl=en

What's obvious is that you looked it up AFTER I brought it to your attention...
and my intent had not a whit to do with spelling, as a restaurant could just as
easily be named The Golden Coral (a very upscale Polynesian joint)... actually
my intent with noting "coral" was simply to imply that you are an ignorant no
class hillybilly who would much more likely opt to eat at a *corral*. Now I'm
wondering if you truly mean "palette", or palate... both fit but at $6.95 one
couldn't do much justice to either.


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

On 22 Oct 2003 21:08:51 GMT, (PENMART01) wrote:

>Steve Squwertz > writes:
>
>>(PENMART01) wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Sqwertz writes:
>>>>
>>>>For $6.95 at Golden Coral you can dress your palette
>>>>with 60 kinds of food.
>>>
>>>Somehow I bet that should be Golden *Corral*.
>>
>>Thanks, typo nazi. You can be my little puppy dog that follows nme
>>around fixing all my typos, as obviously I already know how to spell
>>it.
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=we...oe=UTF-8&hl=en
>
>What's obvious is that you looked it up AFTER I brought it to your attention...

Dude, I'm pointing out that I've spelled it right at least a dozen
times in the past - that it is indeed a typo (which Imake a lot of)
and not mis-spelling it. I don't *need* to look it up to know it was
mis-spelled.

You should really pay more attention rather than making a fool of
yourself, yet again.

>my intent with noting "coral" was simply to imply that you are an ignorant no
>class hillybilly

Your posts certainly prove that you have uch more class than any of us
here. My un-neutered, unwashed dog chained-up out back has more class
than you.

>Now I'm
>wondering if you truly mean "palette", or palate... both fit but at $6.95 one
>couldn't do much justice to either.

And yes, I used 'palette' correctly, but meant to imply both meanings
of course. Gettying a little persnickety and crotchety in your old
age, eh?

-sw

FERRANTE > wrote in message >. ..
> Quite often I will watch cooking shows on the food channel and wonder
> is food presentation really worth it? I mean, you take a little food,
> encircle it with a few lines of some sauce and you have a pretty
> plate. But who could be satisfied with those small amounts? And I mean
> small amounts!
>
> I, personally, like a plate that is packed with food. I like it where
> there is no space left and the food almost falls off the plate. If I
> want art, I'll go to the museum.
>
> It's late and I'm going to have my SlimFast meal replacement. I often
> wonder where these extra pounds come from...
>
>
>
> Mark Anthony Ferrante


When I go to a restaurant all that really matters to me is the quality
of the food and how much of it I have.

I do enjoy if if there's a nice atmosphere, a lack of loud children,
etc. I also can appreciate a beautiful presentation. I like to garnish
foods I make at home.

I hate to go to a restaurant, eat, and still be hungry. I prefer large
portions so that I can take some home if I need to, and yet have as
much as I want to feel satisfied.

If I was going to one of those fancy restaurants I'd probably eat a
little before I went. Then I'd be able to appreciate the
atmosphere/presentation, etc. without worrying about how much my
stomach was growling.

PENMART01 wrote:

> "Jack Schidt=AE" > writes:
>=20
>>Out of the couple dozen or so restaurants within a 20 minute
>>drive from here, only 1 offers half portions, and even those are pretty=

>>generous. I like feeling sated and not stuffed to where I'm sitting th=
ere
>>pole-axed. I wish more places would offer a reduced portion option.
>>
>>Jack Fed-eral
>=20
> Then they'd have to offer a reduced price option, which would in effect=
,
> considering that actual food is their least costly element of running a=

> restaurant,

Cookie, really, stick to subjects you know something about. I can't=20
imagine what that would be, but I'm sure there's one.

"Cost of goods sold" is either the largest or second largest part of a=20
restaurant's budget. The other large one is labor. Between the two=20
(called "prime cost" in the trade) they often total 60 to 65% of=20
revenue in profitable restaurants. More in the losers and country clubs.

Food is a variable cost and perfectly suited to reduced portion size=20
if it's planned for. Cooking a steak and then cutting it in half is no=20
burden for a restaurant kitchen. Halving a portion of lasagna, likewise.

> put the fine-dining restaurant out of business and into Chapter
> 11... perhaps yoose portion quantity affectionados should revisit the "=
Sm.,
> Med., Lg." fast food dining experience.
>=20
> And then again I've not ever noticed where fine-dining restaurants offe=
r very
> large portions... perhaps yoose is speaking of the Fercoctah Family Cha=
ins.

And perhaps you should try writing in conventional English instead of=20
this too-cutesie Katzian patois.

Another strategy is to order a dinner and split it. I encouraged that=20
in my restaurants. It still worked out for us because when people ate=20
less in their entrees and sides, they had room for dessert. And, even=20
if they didn't have dessert, they appreciated our efforts to please=20
them and returned again and again. Booked parties with us. Brought=20
out-of-towners. Talked us up.

Pastorio

Steve Squwertz writes:

> (PENMART01) wrote:
>>Steve Squwertz writes:
>>>(PENMART01) wrote:
>>>>Steve Sqwertz writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>For $6.95 at Golden Coral you can dress your palette
>>>>>with 60 kinds of food.
>>>>
>>>>Somehow I bet that should be Golden *Corral*.
>>>
>>>Thanks, typo nazi. You can be my little puppy dog that follows nme
>>>around fixing all my typos, as obviously I already know how to spell
>>>it.
>
>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=we...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
&hl=en
>>
>>What's obvious is that you looked it up AFTER I brought it to your
>attention...
>
>Dude, I'm pointing out that I've spelled it right at least a dozen
>times in the past - that it is indeed a typo

From your syntax, Dude, you're obviously back pedaling, you MISspelled the word
(admit it), it was NOT a typo, no way, no how.

<yawn>


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."

FERRANTE wrote:
> Quite often I will watch cooking shows on the food channel and wonder
> is food presentation really worth it? I mean, you take a little food,
> encircle it with a few lines of some sauce and you have a pretty
> plate. But who could be satisfied with those small amounts? And I mean
> small amounts!
>
> I, personally, like a plate that is packed with food. I like it where
> there is no space left and the food almost falls off the plate. If I
> want art, I'll go to the museum.
>
I can appreciate the irony: Say, for example, three broiled sea scallops
with 3 stalks of marinated grilled asparagus, a little drizzling of sauce in
a circle and maybe a piece of turned-into-a-dove radish on a plate being
ridiculous. Particularly if that plate is going to cost you $40 at a
restaurant.

However, I cannot understand a plate stuffed so full the food is brimming
off the sides of it. At "homestyle cookin'" diners I get meals that I can't
possibly eat. Of course, there is no room for garnish and the sauces are on
the side. That's what doggy-bags and to-go boxes are for. I can eat for
three days for under $8.00. But I think I'd rather eat for three days at
$24 than leave hungry from one meal costing $40.

Jill

Frogleg wrote:
> On 22 Oct 2003 13:15:07 -0500, "Bob" > wrote:
>
>> JakeInHartsel wrote:
>>
>> One way to get the most out of your dining experience is to pace it
>> properly. Earlier this year, I had the pleasure of eating at Aqua
>> in Las Vegas. The portions were small, but the courses were
>> presented at just the right intervals. The effect this has is to
>> fill your stomach slowly, so that you feel full even though you
>> haven't eaten all that much. (Aqua's a great restaurant, by the
>> way: The food is wonderful and the service is world-class.)
>
> I find this interesting. Even a seeming proponent of moderate portions
> is waiting for a large cumulative amount of food to "feel full." I
> was with a group of previously unacquainted people a couple of years
> ago and listened to one rave about a new restaurant in town. She and
> fellow diners had had "huge plates" full of food. They'd all taken
> home enough for at least another meal. This woman talked glowingly for
> 15 minutes about the *quantity* of food, without ever mentioning the
> taste or what was offered/eaten.

I must amend a post I made on the subject then, concerning "homestyle
cooking" diners. I did mention I can get enough food (here we go with the
quantity) to eat for three days for about $8. But I did not mention, the
food is invariably delicious. But the OP was talking about pretty little
arranged pieces drizzled with some sauce for which some places would charge
$40 and make most people wonder, "What's for dinner?"

Thinking about it in more depth now, it's nothing new this concept of pacing
out what one is served in many courses. I never grew up such a scenario,
obviously. First an appetizer, perhaps a wine and cheese course, then a
soup course, then a salad course, then a main course, a dessert course and
fresh fruit, coffee and tea and brandy and cognac. But if you look in many
old cookbooks about *formal* dinner service, this is how it was. I'd be on
the couch snoozing after a couple of appetizers and a shallow bowl of soup


Jill

On 23 Oct 2003 00:21:22 GMT, (PENMART01) wrote:


>Steve Squwertz writes:
>
>> (PENMART01) wrote:
>>>Steve Squwertz writes:
>>>>(PENMART01) wrote:
>>>>>Steve Sqwertz writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>For $6.95 at Golden Coral you can dress your palette
>>>>>>with 60 kinds of food.
>>>>>
>>>>>Somehow I bet that should be Golden *Corral*.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks, typo nazi. You can be my little puppy dog that follows nme
>>>>around fixing all my typos, as obviously I already know how to spell
>>>>it.
>>
>>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=we...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
>&hl=en
>>>
>>>What's obvious is that you looked it up AFTER I brought it to your
>>attention...
>>
>>Dude, I'm pointing out that I've spelled it right at least a dozen
>>times in the past - that it is indeed a typo
>
>From your syntax, Dude, you're obviously back pedaling, you MISspelled the word
>(admit it), it was NOT a typo, no way, no how.

Yep - whatever you say, spelling-nazi/typo jew. Man - are you going
downhill and fast. You used to be almost tolerable 8-10 years ago,
but in the last year, what's left of your mind is being eaten away by
Tourettes.

-sw

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:24:04 GMT, (A.T.
Hagan) wrote:


>I like a good presentation on the plate, it can do a lot to make the
>food more appealing. But first and last I'd better be able to walk
>out of that restaurant feeling like I got my money's worth of actual
>food in the stomach. I don't mean gorging at some all-you-can-eat
>place, but just a decent meal on the plate.

The problem seems to be that _everything_ is "supersized". A
multi-course meal often includes a salad that takes up an entire
dinner plate, or a large bowl of soup. The entree and at least one of
the sides (usually the carb-potato/rice/whatnot) are each almsot a
meal in and of themselves...the only thing that is "normal" sized,
seems to be the vegetables. Then they want to know if you have room
for dessert!

It's one thing to have a full-plate salad if that's all you're eating.
As a single course in a meal, make it smaller, make it a little nicer,
and press on. Doing that, you could eat _everything_ and be sated...or
have room for dessert.

Bob

PENMART01 wrote:
> What's obvious is that you looked it up AFTER I brought it to your
> attention... and my intent had not a whit to do with spelling, as a
> restaurant could just as easily be named The Golden Coral (a very
> upscale Polynesian joint)... actually my intent with noting "coral"
> was simply to imply that you are an ignorant no class hillybilly who
> would much more likely opt to eat at a *corral*. Now I'm wondering
> if you truly mean "palette", or palate... both fit but at $6.95 one
> couldn't do much justice to either.

Assmuffin.

--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:50:01 -0500, "jmcquown"
> wrote:

>I can appreciate the irony: Say, for example, three broiled sea scallops
>with 3 stalks of marinated grilled asparagus, a little drizzling of sauce in
>a circle and maybe a piece of turned-into-a-dove radish on a plate being
>ridiculous. Particularly if that plate is going to cost you $40 at a
>restaurant.

Ah, but those places seem to be based on the idea of eating all of the
"formal" courses. Of course, that gets spendy too, but that's the
idea. For "fine" dining, I don't mind, because it's more of an
atmosphere/entertainment thing...a pleasure to eat, versus sustenance.
Still many of the more "common" restaurants could still do well to
reduce portions a little (or have some kind of 2-level portion system
with their meals. You want a platter of mashed potatoes as big as
you're head, go for it. You want what you can actually eat...that's
alright too.

Bob

PENMART01 wrote:

> Steve Squwertz writes:
>
>>(PENMART01) wrote:
>>
>>>Steve Squwertz writes:
>>>
>>>>(PENMART01) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Steve Sqwertz writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>For $6.95 at Golden Coral you can dress your palette
>>>>>>with 60 kinds of food.
>>>>>
>>>>>Somehow I bet that should be Golden *Corral*.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks, typo nazi. You can be my little puppy dog that follows nme
>>>>around fixing all my typos, as obviously I already know how to spell
>>>>it.
>>
>>>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=we...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
> &hl=en
>
>>>What's obvious is that you looked it up AFTER I brought it to your
>>attention...
>>
>>Dude, I'm pointing out that I've spelled it right at least a dozen
>>times in the past - that it is indeed a typo
>
> From your syntax, Dude, you're obviously back pedaling,

Backpedaling is one word.

> you MISspelled the word

You MISspelled the word.

Idiot.

Pastorio


> (admit it), it was NOT a typo, no way, no how.
>
> <yawn>
>
>
> ---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
> ---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
> Sheldon
> ````````````
> "Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."
>

Jonathan Gaughan writes:

>PENMART01 wrote:
>> What's obvious is that you looked it up AFTER I brought it to your
>> attention... and my intent had not a whit to do with spelling, as a
>> restaurant could just as easily be named The Golden Coral (a very
>> upscale Polynesian joint)... actually my intent with noting "coral"
>> was simply to imply that you are an ignorant no class hillybilly who
>> would much more likely opt to eat at a *corral*. Now I'm wondering
>> if you truly mean "palette", or palate... both fit but at $6.95 one
>> couldn't do much justice to either.
>
>Assmuffin.

You bet I'm your Assmuffin... bend over and spread em, Jonathan. LOL

Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. . . .


---= BOYCOTT FRENCH--GERMAN (belgium) =---
---= Move UNITED NATIONS To Paris =---
Sheldon
````````````
"Life would be devoid of all meaning were it without tribulation."