 |
|
| General Cooking (rec.food.cooking) For general food and cooking discussion. Foods of all kinds, food procurement, cooking methods and techniques, eating, etc. |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
What is a snob? Food or otherwise...
Snobs are people who judge others or things on inappropriate criteria.
Basing the judgement on settings or conditions that don't really have to do with the central question. It can be seen as a variant on bigotry where entire groups are judged on faulty criteria. "All black are..." " or Jews aren't good at..." or "Italians always ..." fill in the blank. Snobs, however, generally attach great importance to wealth, position, popularity, presumed (or assumed) quality, etc. and generally show contempt for anything they feel isn't up to those (usually synthetic) standards. They also generally like to make a show of only having associations with upscale people, things and settings. They are frauds, often trying to imitate the people they think are better than they are. I think snobbery is a fearful state to live in. Always afraid that some little crack will show in the carefully arranged facade. People who try to make their judgements of what foods are good and bad stand as valid measure. As though somehow there's a moral judgement to attach to which foods we like. People who insist that some foods are somehow *always* to be eschewed while some food is the *only thing to ever use* are snobs who've never enjoyed or understood the value of appreciating things for themselves. Different circumstances dictate different solutions to different questions. For a Saturday afternoon football extravaganza with the guys featuring a vast tray of nachos with melty cheese, salsa and great gobs of sour cream, the setting demands Velveeta for all its properties. For a setting where the food is the center of events, an aged, artisanal cheddar might be appropriate. But neither is good or bad, absolutely, and ascribing rightness or wrongness to either is snobbery. Choosing what to eat or not eat is a matter of personal preference, and de gustibus est non disputandum. There's no disputing about taste. Agree or disagree, there's no inherent quality to anything. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:07:34 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote: >There's no disputing about taste. Agree or disagree, there's no inherent >quality to anything. > >Pastorio Yes there is :> Seriously. You might think that snobs lack certain human qualities, and perhaps you're right, but there is such a thing as quality, in food and other things. Whether or not people are able to or choose to go for the quality, is a different matter. We may have some food snobs around here. But after reading your post, it seems that you're a snob snob, Bob ;> Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Curly Sue wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:07:34 -0400, "Bob (this one)" > > wrote: > >>There's no disputing about taste. Agree or disagree, there's no inherent >>quality to anything. > > Yes there is :> Really? Define it for me, could you...? And do try to make it independent of opinion... I listen to people get all worked up about some food thing as though it came in one of those double-packs where one is the food and the other is a concentrated reduction of pure evil, all sneeringly described. I listen to people raise their pinkies and hold forth about the One True Way to Boil an Egg or the One True Way to Make a Burger and I can only laugh. It's as though those fools can't imagine an alternative to their perfection. It's deciding before the fact. > Seriously. You might think that snobs lack certain human qualities, Backwards. I think that snobs have too much of one human quality, and this use of the word is different than what I mean above - here it merely means attributes. The string of human attributes most people like includes decisiveness; directness in decision-making. Snobs make decisions quickly but based more on on irrelevancies than the characteristics of the situation at hand. > and perhaps you're right, but there is such a thing as quality, in > food and other things. Nah. It's all a construct. We create definitions and fit things to that. And like all things based on opinion, they're individual. There's nothing inherently of better quality in a hot dog versus some artisanal German braunschweiger. Neither is of better or worse quality unless fitted to a created definition of quality. All such definitions are artificial statements not reflective of any absolutes - they're opinions. Diamonds are no more reflective (heh) of high quality than any other stone. It's teh characteristics we've assigned that make it more or less valuable and, by snobbish values, more desirable. It may not be prettier than another stone. It doesn't haev to be; it's a DIAMOND. > Whether or not people are able to or choose to > go for the quality, is a different matter. Exactly so. And not what I'm talking about. We all have our ideas of what quality is in most things. And we all hide it when we do something that contradicts what we've said publicly about our standards. So we sheepishly admit to those guilty pleasures we've heard others put down. > We may have some food snobs around here. But after reading your post, > it seems that you're a snob snob, Bob ;> How silly. So I'm judging foolish behavior on wrong criteria? I dunno. Seems like a very reasonable position to avoid people who think that price is the determinant of quality. Or its scarcity. Or its brand name. Or its manufacturing processes... As opposed to taste, or the pleasure it gives or how well it fits the situation... Before any sort of quality assessment can be made, there needs to be that opinion-definition and the item in question to be measured against it. And it can be misleading and we can fool ourselves by measuring against the wrong criterion. People sneer at "imitation crabmeat" but happily consume "surimi." That word "imitation" has knee-jerk connotations for way too many people who don't seem to realize it's just a labeling convention forced on us by our government. In blind taste tests, the folks at Cooks Illustrated found that their experts preferred imitation vanilla to "the real thing" (love that expression, as though one way of doing it is absolutely correct and anything else isn't). Never mind that different manufacturers of vanilla extract process their beans differently. People wouldn't buy "Chinese gooseberries" but scarfed up "kiwi fruit." We consumers judged and condemned the fruit on its name, not its flavor, color, texture, etc. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob (this one)" > said:
>Before any sort of quality assessment can be made, there needs to be >that opinion-definition and the item in question to be measured against >it. And it can be misleading and we can fool ourselves by measuring >against the wrong criterion. People sneer at "imitation crabmeat" but >happily consume "surimi." That word "imitation" has knee-jerk >connotations for way too many people who don't seem to realize it's just >a labeling convention forced on us by our government. In blind taste >tests, the folks at Cooks Illustrated found that their experts preferred >imitation vanilla to "the real thing" (love that expression, as though >one way of doing it is absolutely correct and anything else isn't). >Never mind that different manufacturers of vanilla extract process their >beans differently. > >People wouldn't buy "Chinese gooseberries" but scarfed up "kiwi fruit." >We consumers judged and condemned the fruit on its name, not its flavor, >color, texture, etc. Cornmeal mush vs. polenta.  Carol -- Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
>As though somehow there's a moral >judgement to attach to which
>foods we like. Visit egullet.com...where you have to write an essay to get in. Where you have to apologise for liking things like Mrs. Dash, and Miracle Whip. <<<eyeroll>>>> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:07:34 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote: >Different circumstances dictate different solutions to different >questions. For a Saturday afternoon football extravaganza with the guys >featuring a vast tray of nachos with melty cheese, salsa and great gobs >of sour cream, the setting demands Velveeta for all its properties. For >a setting where the food is the center of events, an aged, artisanal >cheddar might be appropriate. But neither is good or bad, absolutely, >and ascribing rightness or wrongness to either is snobbery. Choosing >what to eat or not eat is a matter of personal preference, and de >gustibus est non disputandum. > I don't think I'd go that far myself. Though I confess that the whole "best way to make coffee cake" premise of America's Test Kitchen does chap my sensibilities. Also your post brought to mind Anthony Bourdain's comments that great cooking comes from kitchens untroubled by an abundance of cash. His argument is that really good cooking comes from people who have to make tasty things out of very little. He cites rural France and Italy, Vietnam, and the American South as examples. >There's no disputing about taste. Agree or disagree, there's no inherent >quality to anything. > Don't know about that, Bob. I once had lunch here in Cow Hill with a guy who knew tons about New Orleans. He had some sort of trust fund and a real interest in hipness of thought, deed and desire. I told him how much I loved the fried oyster po boys at a joint near the French Market in the Quarter. Joint was called Fiorello's, I think. Amazing, sez I, such breading! Such bread! Beer was chilled! He said he thought he knew the place: "It's got a wood-fired oven." I haven't ventured into the kitchen at Fiorello's, but from the look of the place, they're surely proud they're able to afford gas. He was a snob. I once had dinner in a centuries-old mansion in the colonial district of Santo Domingo. We'd arranged to rent a house on the beach on the north side of the island, but had to cash out because of some political troubles that made driving there impossible according to our host. So we had a beach house in pesos to eat. We ate it. All appetizers, wine, and desserts. It was delightful. It was better than Fiorella's po boys, even. I once ate a pizza at a place called Aldo's in St. Remy de Provence. I think it was the best pizza I've ever had. I remember gorgonzola and a thin crust. Aldo's has a wood-fired oven. Hope that doesn't put me in league with that silly snob. modom Only superficial people don't judge by appearances. -- Oscar Wilde |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 08 May 2005 21:34:54 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote: >Curly Sue wrote: > >> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:07:34 -0400, "Bob (this one)" > >> wrote: >> >>>There's no disputing about taste. Agree or disagree, there's no inherent >>>quality to anything. >> >> Yes there is :> > >Really? Define it for me, could you...? And do try to make it >independent of opinion... Superior, excellent. The properties that define "quality" depend on the individual item. For example, for singing, I have a really bad voice. Most people would agree, and so would you. I doubt you'd pay for a CD by me. Ask people who buy beef for a living if there is such a thing as "quality," and if so, how do they judge? Probably different from how my voice is judged. But there are objective standards for many things, on which experts in a particular area agree. >I listen to people get all worked up about some food thing as though it >came in one of those double-packs where one is the food and the other is >a concentrated reduction of pure evil, all sneeringly described. I >listen to people raise their pinkies and hold forth about the One True >Way to Boil an Egg or the One True Way to Make a Burger and I can only >laugh. It's as though those fools can't imagine an alternative to their >perfection. It's deciding before the fact. Simply because there are people who act as you describe doesn't mean that there are no standards of quality. >> Seriously. You might think that snobs lack certain human qualities, > >Backwards. I think that snobs have too much of one human quality, and >this use of the word is different than what I mean above - here it >merely means attributes. The string of human attributes most people like >includes decisiveness; directness in decision-making. Snobs make >decisions quickly but based more on on irrelevancies than the >characteristics of the situation at hand. Not really. You are making a snap judgement of everyone who has standards. >> and perhaps you're right, but there is such a thing as quality, in >> food and other things. > >Nah. It's all a construct. We create definitions and fit things to that. >And like all things based on opinion, they're individual. There's >nothing inherently of better quality in a hot dog versus some artisanal >German braunschweiger. Neither is of better or worse quality unless >fitted to a created definition of quality. All such definitions are >artificial statements not reflective of any absolutes - they're opinions. Generally based on consensus. Regardless of who makes them, there are bad and better hot dogs. The decision should be based on samplings, of course, but often generalizations can be made. >Diamonds are no more reflective (heh) of high quality than any other >stone. It's teh characteristics we've assigned that make it more or less >valuable and, by snobbish values, more desirable. It may not be prettier >than another stone. It doesn't haev to be; it's a DIAMOND. You're confusing desirability with quality and comparing apples to oranges. "Quality" is something that is judged within a class. There are better and worse quality diamonds. Few people would trade an industrial diamond for an excellent sapphire, assuming that they knew what they were doing, or trade a sapphire for a brick. Within the category of diamonds there are measurable characteristics that determine value and an appraiser can do that job. Within the category of "bricks," a mason could probably evaluate high and low quality bricks better than a jewelry appraiser. >> Whether or not people are able to or choose to >> go for the quality, is a different matter. > >Exactly so. And not what I'm talking about. We all have our ideas of >what quality is in most things. And we all hide it when we do something >that contradicts what we've said publicly about our standards. So we >sheepishly admit to those guilty pleasures we've heard others put down. That doesn't mean that we don't recognize that we're slumming. I like Hershey kisses, but that doesn't mean that I can't tell the difference between Hershey's chocolates and Jacque Torres'. A food snob wouldn't eat Hersheys. OK. I can deal with that. It doesn't make me angry and I don't see why it bothers other people. >> We may have some food snobs around here. But after reading your post, >> it seems that you're a snob snob, Bob ;> > >How silly. So I'm judging foolish behavior on wrong criteria? I dunno. > >Seems like a very reasonable position to avoid people who think that >price is the determinant of quality. Or its scarcity. Or its brand name. >Or its manufacturing processes... As opposed to taste, or the pleasure >it gives or how well it fits the situation... An expert in a particular area knows the criteria that mean quality in an item. In some cases, that is related to the manufacturing process which makes a difference in a material way. For example, I would expect a carpenter to know the different characteristics of wood and ideally how the wood is processed and how that makes a difference in the finished product. If you had a house built, you'd probably be very, very interested in the "quality" of the materials used and drop all the "it's just opinion" stuff. >Before any sort of quality assessment can be made, there needs to be >that opinion-definition and the item in question to be measured against >it. And it can be misleading and we can fool ourselves by measuring >against the wrong criterion. People sneer at "imitation crabmeat" but >happily consume "surimi." That word "imitation" has knee-jerk >connotations for way too many people who don't seem to realize it's just >a labeling convention forced on us by our government. In blind taste >tests, the folks at Cooks Illustrated found that their experts preferred >imitation vanilla to "the real thing" (love that expression, as though >one way of doing it is absolutely correct and anything else isn't). >Never mind that different manufacturers of vanilla extract process their >beans differently. Imitation vanilla is synthetic and the "real thing," no matter how it's produced, is extracted from vanilla beans. That was easy. In this case it had no bearing in the taste tests of Cook's Illustrated, so that "quality" of the finished product was not dependent on the source of the flavor. Try doing that with strawberry and see if they can't tell the difference between real and imitiation flavoring. >People wouldn't buy "Chinese gooseberries" but scarfed up "kiwi fruit." >We consumers judged and condemned the fruit on its name, not its flavor, >color, texture, etc. > >Pastorio It seems you recognize that there are criteria for quality in kiwis, namely flavor, color, texture. All of the examples you given are of people who don't know what they are talking about. Those who are food snob-wannabes without doing their homework to find out what quality is, relying instead on (generally) correlated indicators such as price and name brand. Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Curly Sue" > wrote in message ... > On Sun, 08 May 2005 21:34:54 -0400, "Bob (this one)" > > wrote: > >>Curly Sue wrote: >> >>> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:07:34 -0400, "Bob (this one)" > >>> wrote: >>> >>>>There's no disputing about taste. Agree or disagree, there's no inherent >>>>quality to anything. >>> >>> Yes there is :> >> >>Really? Define it for me, could you...? And do try to make it >>independent of opinion... > > Superior, excellent. The properties that define "quality" depend on > the individual item. For example, for singing, I have a really bad > voice. Most people would agree, and so would you. I doubt you'd pay > for a CD by me. > > Ask people who buy beef for a living if there is such a thing as > "quality," and if so, how do they judge? Probably different from how > my voice is judged. > > But there are objective standards for many things, on which experts in > a particular area agree. > >>I listen to people get all worked up about some food thing as though it >>came in one of those double-packs where one is the food and the other is >>a concentrated reduction of pure evil, all sneeringly described. I >>listen to people raise their pinkies and hold forth about the One True >>Way to Boil an Egg or the One True Way to Make a Burger and I can only >>laugh. It's as though those fools can't imagine an alternative to their >>perfection. It's deciding before the fact. > > Simply because there are people who act as you describe doesn't mean > that there are no standards of quality. > >>> Seriously. You might think that snobs lack certain human qualities, >> >>Backwards. I think that snobs have too much of one human quality, and >>this use of the word is different than what I mean above - here it >>merely means attributes. The string of human attributes most people like >>includes decisiveness; directness in decision-making. Snobs make >>decisions quickly but based more on on irrelevancies than the >>characteristics of the situation at hand. > > Not really. You are making a snap judgement of everyone who has > standards. > >>> and perhaps you're right, but there is such a thing as quality, in >>> food and other things. >> >>Nah. It's all a construct. We create definitions and fit things to that. >>And like all things based on opinion, they're individual. There's >>nothing inherently of better quality in a hot dog versus some artisanal >>German braunschweiger. Neither is of better or worse quality unless >>fitted to a created definition of quality. All such definitions are >>artificial statements not reflective of any absolutes - they're opinions. > > Generally based on consensus. Regardless of who makes them, there are > bad and better hot dogs. The decision should be based on samplings, > of course, but often generalizations can be made. > >>Diamonds are no more reflective (heh) of high quality than any other >>stone. It's teh characteristics we've assigned that make it more or less >>valuable and, by snobbish values, more desirable. It may not be prettier >>than another stone. It doesn't haev to be; it's a DIAMOND. > > You're confusing desirability with quality and comparing apples to > oranges. "Quality" is something that is judged within a class. > There are better and worse quality diamonds. Few people would trade > an industrial diamond for an excellent sapphire, assuming that they > knew what they were doing, or trade a sapphire for a brick. Within > the category of diamonds there are measurable characteristics that > determine value and an appraiser can do that job. Within the category > of "bricks," a mason could probably evaluate high and low quality > bricks better than a jewelry appraiser. > >>> Whether or not people are able to or choose to >>> go for the quality, is a different matter. >> >>Exactly so. And not what I'm talking about. We all have our ideas of >>what quality is in most things. And we all hide it when we do something >>that contradicts what we've said publicly about our standards. So we >>sheepishly admit to those guilty pleasures we've heard others put down. > > That doesn't mean that we don't recognize that we're slumming. I like > Hershey kisses, but that doesn't mean that I can't tell the difference > between Hershey's chocolates and Jacque Torres'. > > A food snob wouldn't eat Hersheys. OK. I can deal with that. It > doesn't make me angry and I don't see why it bothers other people. > >>> We may have some food snobs around here. But after reading your post, >>> it seems that you're a snob snob, Bob ;> >> >>How silly. So I'm judging foolish behavior on wrong criteria? I dunno. >> >>Seems like a very reasonable position to avoid people who think that >>price is the determinant of quality. Or its scarcity. Or its brand name. >>Or its manufacturing processes... As opposed to taste, or the pleasure >>it gives or how well it fits the situation... > > An expert in a particular area knows the criteria that mean quality in > an item. In some cases, that is related to the manufacturing process > which makes a difference in a material way. For example, I would > expect a carpenter to know the different characteristics of wood and > ideally how the wood is processed and how that makes a difference in > the finished product. > > If you had a house built, you'd probably be very, very interested in > the "quality" of the materials used and drop all the "it's just > opinion" stuff. > >>Before any sort of quality assessment can be made, there needs to be >>that opinion-definition and the item in question to be measured against >>it. And it can be misleading and we can fool ourselves by measuring >>against the wrong criterion. People sneer at "imitation crabmeat" but >>happily consume "surimi." That word "imitation" has knee-jerk >>connotations for way too many people who don't seem to realize it's just >>a labeling convention forced on us by our government. In blind taste >>tests, the folks at Cooks Illustrated found that their experts preferred >>imitation vanilla to "the real thing" (love that expression, as though >>one way of doing it is absolutely correct and anything else isn't). >>Never mind that different manufacturers of vanilla extract process their >>beans differently. > > Imitation vanilla is synthetic and the "real thing," no matter how > it's produced, is extracted from vanilla beans. That was easy. > > In this case it had no bearing in the taste tests of Cook's > Illustrated, so that "quality" of the finished product was not > dependent on the source of the flavor. Try doing that with strawberry > and see if they can't tell the difference between real and imitiation > flavoring. > >>People wouldn't buy "Chinese gooseberries" but scarfed up "kiwi fruit." >>We consumers judged and condemned the fruit on its name, not its flavor, >>color, texture, etc. >> >>Pastorio > > It seems you recognize that there are criteria for quality in kiwis, > namely flavor, color, texture. > > All of the examples you given are of people who don't know what they > are talking about. Those who are food snob-wannabes without doing > their homework to find out what quality is, relying instead on > (generally) correlated indicators such as price and name brand. > > Sue(tm) > Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! Quality is conformance to specification. Read any quality engineering book, ask any industrial engineer. Is a horse higher quality than a duck? Meaningless question. Is Fois Gras higher quality than liverwurst? Likewise a meaningless question. del cecchi |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob (this one) wrote:
> Different circumstances dictate different solutions to different > questions. For a Saturday afternoon football extravaganza with the guys > featuring a vast tray of nachos with melty cheese, salsa and great gobs > of sour cream, the setting demands Velveeta for all its properties. For > a setting where the food is the center of events, an aged, artisanal > cheddar might be appropriate. But neither is good or bad, absolutely, > and ascribing rightness or wrongness to either is snobbery. Choosing > what to eat or not eat is a matter of personal preference, and de > gustibus est non disputandum. > > Pastorio Velveeta is too pretentious. ;-) Try using American cheese sandwich slices instead of Velveeta next time you make gooey melty cheesy stuff -- and if possible make sure the label says something like "Pasteurized Processed American Cheese", not "cheese food" or "cheese product". You'll thank me. Best regards, Bob |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Damsel wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > said: > >> Before any sort of quality assessment can be made, there needs to be >> that opinion-definition and the item in question to be measured >> against it. And it can be misleading and we can fool ourselves by >> measuring against the wrong criterion. People sneer at "imitation >> crabmeat" but happily consume "surimi." > > Cornmeal mush vs. polenta. > > Carol Same damn thing, but it's not made with *grits* Jill |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 8 May 2005, Damsel wrote: > "Bob (this one)" > said: > > >Before any sort of quality assessment can be made, there needs to be > >that opinion-definition and the item in question to be measured against > >it. And it can be misleading and we can fool ourselves by measuring > >against the wrong criterion. People sneer at "imitation crabmeat" but > >happily consume "surimi." That word "imitation" has knee-jerk > >connotations for way too many people who don't seem to realize it's just > >a labeling convention forced on us by our government. In blind taste > >tests, the folks at Cooks Illustrated found that their experts preferred > >imitation vanilla to "the real thing" (love that expression, as though > >one way of doing it is absolutely correct and anything else isn't). > >Never mind that different manufacturers of vanilla extract process their > >beans differently. > > > >People wouldn't buy "Chinese gooseberries" but scarfed up "kiwi fruit." > >We consumers judged and condemned the fruit on its name, not its flavor, > >color, texture, etc. > > Cornmeal mush vs. polenta. > > Carol > -- > Coming at you live, from beautiful Lake Woebegon > You go, Bob! Tee hee hee, Carol, I was reading your mind! That was exactly what I thought when I was reading Bob's post. I laughed out loud when I read your response. Emeril, from what he has said on his show, uses a lot of polenta for bases in his soup/stew - esque dishes. I envision an entry on his menu. Emeril's Delectable Ragu... Tiny buttons of tenderloin broiled to perfection and dots of perfectly roasted duck breast topped with a red wine sauce slowly simmered with fresh garlic, sweet shallots, and colorful bellpeppers lightly kissed by cardamon and saffron, with a fresh array of exotic mushrooms and imported truffles nestled on a double dollop of corn meal mush. How much can a first rate restaurant get for corn meal mush, anyway??? Elaine, too |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Elaine Parrish > said:
>Emeril, from what he has said on his show, uses a lot of polenta for bases >in his soup/stew - esque dishes. > >I envision an entry on his menu. > >Emeril's Delectable Ragu... Tiny buttons of tenderloin broiled to >perfection and dots of perfectly roasted duck breast topped with a red >wine sauce slowly simmered with fresh >garlic, sweet shallots, and colorful bellpeppers lightly kissed by >cardamon and saffron, with a fresh array of exotic mushrooms and imported >truffles nestled on a double dollop of corn meal mush. ROFLMAO! You have an evil mind! And a way with words. This is great! >How much can a first rate restaurant get for corn meal mush, anyway??? About 10 times as much when they call it polenta, than they would get if they called it cornmeal mush. <G> Carol |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Food For Thought wrote:
>>As though somehow there's a moral >judgement to attach to which >>foods we like. > > > Visit egullet.com...where you have to write an essay to get in. Where > you have to apologise for liking things like Mrs. Dash, and Miracle > Whip. <<<eyeroll>>>> I played there for a short time. Too many aristocrats and self-appointed trend setters. Too many people who know how the rest of us should eat. BTDT... Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rick Rider wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:07:34 -0400, "Bob (this one)" > > wrote: > > >> Snobs are people who judge others or things on inappropriate >> criteria. Basing the judgement on settings or conditions that don't >> really have to do with the central question. >> >> It can be seen as a variant on bigotry where entire groups are >> judged on faulty criteria. "All black are..." " or Jews aren't good >> at..." or "Italians always ..." fill in the blank. >> >> Snobs, however, generally attach great importance to wealth, >> position, popularity, presumed (or assumed) quality, etc. and >> generally show contempt for anything they feel isn't up to those >> (usually synthetic) standards. They also generally like to make a >> show of only having associations with upscale people, things and >> settings. They are frauds, often trying to imitate the people they >> think are better than they are. > > > A bit judgmental here, aren't you? Not "a bit." More than that. It's the definition of what it means to be a snob. Snobbery includes pomposity, irrelevant criteria, pretension, social covetousness and a few more demonstrations of smug superiority. > Frauds? Perhaps they actually believe what they say, are they then > frauds, or simply misguided? In the context, six of one... > Maybe it's a question of aspiring to belong...in which case they are > adopting the mannerisms, and values of the group to which they want > to belong. <LOL> Um, you repeated what I said above. Reread what I wrote. >> Different circumstances dictate different solutions to different >> questions. For a Saturday afternoon football extravaganza with the >> guys featuring a vast tray of nachos with melty cheese, salsa and >> great gobs of sour cream, the setting demands Velveeta for all its >> properties. > > > Yuck! I couldn't eat that stuff, and I've done my share of nacho > plates without it, thank you very much. Above, I said: >> Snobs [...] show contempt for anything they feel isn't up to those >> (usually synthetic) standards. Your own definition says: 2. One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect. res ipsa loquitur >> For a setting where the food is the center of events, an aged, >> artisanal cheddar might be appropriate. But neither is good or bad, >> absolutely, and ascribing rightness or wrongness to either is >> snobbery. Choosing what to eat or not eat is a matter of personal >> preference, and de gustibus est non disputandum. >> >> There's no disputing about taste. Agree or disagree, there's no >> inherent quality to anything. >> > I beg to differ, there is inherent quality in everything, it is only > a matter of defining the parameters by which the quality will be > judged. Do reread what you've written. The definitions aren't inherent or they wouldn't need defining. They aren't objective or everyone would agree. What's good and bad about most things go through cycles of popularity and acceptance. Music, food trends, art, clothing, automobiles... you name it. You make it sound like people will evaluate this thing, whatever it is, recognize the inherent characteristics, say what they are, and pronounce how good it is based on that newly established standard. And once done, it's forever. Wanna buy a Nehru Jacket...? > Seems to me that your entire post was a bit snobbish. Seems you didn't get the substance of your own definitions. Rejecting what one dislikes based on its characteristics isn't snobbery. Characterizing by defining criteria isn't snobbery. > This from Dictionary.com > > Snob: (N) 1. One who tends to patronize, rebuff, or ignore people > regarded as social inferiors and imitate, admire, or seek association > with people regarded as social superiors. 2. One who affects an > offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or > intellect. I patronize, rebuff, or ignore fools who talk nonsense. I don't recognize anyone as a social inferior. I admire people of accomplishment. I don't imitate, admire, or seek association with anyone I regard as a social superior, because I don't recognize anyone as socially superior. There are people I don't like, but that's because of how they act. Likewise there are people I like, for the same reason. Not assessments of superiority or inferiority. I'm the one who has specifically *not* said my tastes were superior. Quite unlike what you did above. I think you have a faulty mirror, Sparky. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Curly Sue wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 21:34:54 -0400, "Bob (this one)" > > wrote: > >>Curly Sue wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:07:34 -0400, "Bob (this one)" > >>>wrote: >>> >>>>There's no disputing about taste. Agree or disagree, there's no inherent >>>>quality to anything. >>> >>>Yes there is :> >> >>Really? Define it for me, could you...? And do try to make it >>independent of opinion... > > Superior, excellent. The properties that define "quality" depend on > the individual item. Not definitions. Quality is a general assessment against a defined standard. It doesn't mean superior or excellent. You're trying to define "quality" as "good" rather than using more neutral words that simply describe the place on the yardstick the particular thing falls. Quality is measurement against some specification. > For example, for singing, I have a really bad > voice. Most people would agree, and so would you. I doubt you'd pay > for a CD by me. Ok, what does having a bad voice mean? Can't sing on key? Can't hold a note? Isn't a full-bodied voice? Doesn't put emotion into the song? Can't involve the listener? Sings through the nose? There are many, many criteria that people will apply to what's high quality. Louis Armstrong mesmerized audiences and had a voice that violated many of the above. He had a scratchy voice, couldn't hold a note and more spoke than sang. But when he sang, the room was quiet until he finished. Joe Cocker. Mick Jagger. Dylan. Are these people good singers? Tell that to their millions of fans. The designations of the quality continuum from "This represents low quality" to "This represents high quality" goes through a very wide middle. And is subject to honest disagreement. > Ask people who buy beef for a living if there is such a thing as > "quality," and if so, how do they judge? Probably different from how > my voice is judged. > > But there are objective standards for many things, on which experts in > a particular area agree. There are *no* objective standards when judging quality. Those people who buy beef have established criteria for assessing beef. They use descriptions like "well-marbled carcass" and "well-formed carcass" and "no obvious wounds" to characterize it. It's not at all objective. It's narrower for an experienced inspector, and that fact says it's acquired judgement. Not objective, learned. And measured against some pretty loose standards. >>I listen to people get all worked up about some food thing as though it >>came in one of those double-packs where one is the food and the other is >>a concentrated reduction of pure evil, all sneeringly described. I >>listen to people raise their pinkies and hold forth about the One True >>Way to Boil an Egg or the One True Way to Make a Burger and I can only >>laugh. It's as though those fools can't imagine an alternative to their >>perfection. It's deciding before the fact. > > Simply because there are people who act as you describe doesn't mean > that there are no standards of quality. There are all sorts of standards. All subjective. And if they enjoy large currency, shared. But not objective. >>>Seriously. You might think that snobs lack certain human qualities, >> >>Backwards. I think that snobs have too much of one human quality, and >>this use of the word is different than what I mean above - here it >>merely means attributes. The string of human attributes most people like >>includes decisiveness; directness in decision-making. Snobs make >>decisions quickly but based more on on irrelevancies than the >>characteristics of the situation at hand. > > Not really. You are making a snap judgement of everyone who has > standards. <LOL> No. I'm making a judgement based on long experience. Lots of people have fooled me over the years with their pretensions and apparent expertise. Later, I learned that there are several criteria that generally point to the snob. They generally devolve to people making decisions based on irrelevant criteria. Not snap at all. More than a half century of evaluations based on congruency between words and deeds. Just like those experts, a lot of information has gone into forming that standard of judgement. >>>and perhaps you're right, but there is such a thing as quality, in >>>food and other things. >> >>Nah. It's all a construct. We create definitions and fit things to that. >>And like all things based on opinion, they're individual. There's >>nothing inherently of better quality in a hot dog versus some artisanal >>German braunschweiger. Neither is of better or worse quality unless >>fitted to a created definition of quality. All such definitions are >>artificial statements not reflective of any absolutes - they're opinions. > > Generally based on consensus. Regardless of who makes them, there are > bad and better hot dogs. The decision should be based on samplings, > of course, but often generalizations can be made. Yep. You're getting closer. The criteria are made up. If we agree with them, we accept them. If not we don't. And if a lot of people agree, then it becomes a conventional wisdom. But be cautious about this because conventional wisdom need not necessarily be wise. Remember when the conventional wisdom was that searing sealed in the juices of roasts? To get a "good" roast, you had to seal in the juices. Nope. >>Diamonds are no more reflective (heh) of high quality than any other >>stone. It's teh characteristics we've assigned that make it more or less >>valuable and, by snobbish values, more desirable. It may not be prettier >>than another stone. It doesn't haev to be; it's a DIAMOND. > > > You're confusing desirability with quality and comparing apples to > oranges. Not really. I'm illustrating the attitude of the snob. > "Quality" is something that is judged within a class. > There are better and worse quality diamonds. Few people would trade > an industrial diamond for an excellent sapphire, assuming that they > knew what they were doing, or trade a sapphire for a brick. Within > the category of diamonds there are measurable characteristics that > determine value and an appraiser can do that job. Yep. And when you get their "4C's" of quality evaluation, it gets interesting. Look this over and see how objective it looks to you. <http://www.diasource.com/fourcs.htm> And then tell me why two experts will give different judgements about diamonds, as happened with an heirloom we had appraised. The difference was about 18% from the highest to the lowest. All based on their quality judgements. The gem guys have gone very far in trying to define their criteria, but their standards are finally just as arbitrary and anyone else's; made up. > Within the category > of "bricks," a mason could probably evaluate high and low quality > bricks better than a jewelry appraiser. That's a matter of experience, not objectivity. Don't confuse time on the job with being able to see "objective" quality assessments. >>>Whether or not people are able to or choose to >>>go for the quality, is a different matter. >> >>Exactly so. And not what I'm talking about. We all have our ideas of >>what quality is in most things. And we all hide it when we do something >>that contradicts what we've said publicly about our standards. So we >>sheepishly admit to those guilty pleasures we've heard others put down. > > That doesn't mean that we don't recognize that we're slumming. I like > Hershey kisses, but that doesn't mean that I can't tell the difference > between Hershey's chocolates and Jacque Torres'. > > A food snob wouldn't eat Hersheys. OK. I can deal with that. It > doesn't make me angry and I don't see why it bothers other people. Here we come to a crucial point. Liking Hershey kisses says you find their "quality" not just acceptable, but desirable. Whether it's as good as what Torres can do is irrelevant since he doesn't *make* chocolate, he buys it. And makes it into things. There are smoother chocolates and coarser ones than Hershey makes. Mexican chocolate is gritty and it seems that the people who buy so much of it think it should be that way; after all that's where it originally came from. Other people like it to be very smooth with no discernible granularity. That has become a judgement point for the quality of the chocolate in many places, but it's certainly not an objective standard. >>>We may have some food snobs around here. But after reading your post, >>>it seems that you're a snob snob, Bob ;> >> >>How silly. So I'm judging foolish behavior on wrong criteria? I dunno. >> >>Seems like a very reasonable position to avoid people who think that >>price is the determinant of quality. Or its scarcity. Or its brand name. >>Or its manufacturing processes... As opposed to taste, or the pleasure >>it gives or how well it fits the situation... > > An expert in a particular area knows the criteria that mean quality in > an item. In some cases, that is related to the manufacturing process > which makes a difference in a material way. Like the chocolate guy above would. But that's because he's working to a specification, not because of any objective standards. He knows if the characteristics of the chocolate fall within certain boundaries, it will be seen as a certain quality level; already defined by specifications. But, again, not objective. > For example, I would > expect a carpenter to know the different characteristics of wood and > ideally how the wood is processed and how that makes a difference in > the finished product. > > If you had a house built, you'd probably be very, very interested in > the "quality" of the materials used and drop all the "it's just > opinion" stuff. You're missing the essential point. That "quality" is predicated on experience in the past for wood used in similar situations and how well it performed. That judgement of how well it performs is not objective. There are many variables that have to enter the consideration. More realistic to judge based on appropriateness. It rains a lot where I live. Adobe won't work. The best adobe in history won't work. >>Before any sort of quality assessment can be made, there needs to be >>that opinion-definition and the item in question to be measured against >>it. And it can be misleading and we can fool ourselves by measuring >>against the wrong criterion. People sneer at "imitation crabmeat" but >>happily consume "surimi." That word "imitation" has knee-jerk >>connotations for way too many people who don't seem to realize it's just >>a labeling convention forced on us by our government. In blind taste >>tests, the folks at Cooks Illustrated found that their experts preferred >>imitation vanilla to "the real thing" (love that expression, as though >>one way of doing it is absolutely correct and anything else isn't). >>Never mind that different manufacturers of vanilla extract process their >>beans differently. > > Imitation vanilla is synthetic and the "real thing," no matter how > it's produced, is extracted from vanilla beans. That was easy. Thank you. You showed that definitions don't determine/affect quality. And that most people will judge based on irrelevancies. The "real thing" can be produced by solvent extraction like the ones used in dry cleaning. They can be made by heat extraction or alcohol extraction. Distinct flavor differences can be sensed based on the methods used to make them. In the US, they all have to adhere to government specifications, but they don't claim to define quality. Only labelling requirements. You'll find that most well-defined specifications don't have all those emotional words attached to them. They'll characterize by number (#1, #2, #3, etc.) or they'll use differing names (prime, choice, select - that call for you to know the definitions before you can distinguish between them). Grade A butter. Grade AA butter. You don't know until you get more info. > In this case it had no bearing in the taste tests of Cook's > Illustrated, so that "quality" of the finished product was not > dependent on the source of the flavor. Try doing that with strawberry > and see if they can't tell the difference between real and imitiation > flavoring. <LOL> Visit a flavor house sometime and see what they can do. <http://www.nypress.com/16/41/food/foos2.cfm> >>People wouldn't buy "Chinese gooseberries" but scarfed up "kiwi fruit." >>We consumers judged and condemned the fruit on its name, not its flavor, >>color, texture, etc. >> >>Pastorio > > It seems you recognize that there are criteria for quality in kiwis, > namely flavor, color, texture. Those are attributes. Characteristics. How we evaluate those characteristics is how quality levels are assigned. > All of the examples you given are of people who don't know what they > are talking about. Those who are food snob-wannabes without doing > their homework to find out what quality is, relying instead on > (generally) correlated indicators such as price and name brand. You miss the point *completely* on this. Snobs *don't* do the homework, by definition. They make their judgements based on the wrong things. The wrong criteria. The wrong rationales. To keep up with the Joneses (or try to surpass them). To live higher than their income permits for the sake of the show. To join the club for the cachet rather than for the club. To buy what others have told them is the best, whether they really know or not. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Damsel wrote:
> Elaine Parrish > said: > >>Emeril, from what he has said on his show, uses a lot of polenta for bases >>in his soup/stew - esque dishes. >> >>I envision an entry on his menu. >> >>Emeril's Delectable Ragu... Tiny buttons of tenderloin broiled to >>perfection and dots of perfectly roasted duck breast topped with a red >>wine sauce slowly simmered with fresh >>garlic, sweet shallots, and colorful bellpeppers lightly kissed by >>cardamon and saffron, with a fresh array of exotic mushrooms and imported >>truffles nestled on a double dollop of corn meal mush. > > ROFLMAO! You have an evil mind! And a way with words. This is great! > >>How much can a first rate restaurant get for corn meal mush, anyway??? > > About 10 times as much when they call it polenta, than they would get if > they called it cornmeal mush. <G> Unless they're doing a "daring fusion of crypto-Alsatian, neo-Italian and American proto-peasant culinary syntheses." The price skyrockets. Polenta? Pshaw, I say. Corn meal mush is the new-era polenta. Made in a microwave in plastic bowls. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message ... > Snobs are people who judge others or things on inappropriate criteria. > Basing the judgement on settings or conditions that don't really have to > do with the central question. > > It can be seen as a variant on bigotry where entire groups are judged on > faulty criteria. "All black are..." " or Jews aren't good at..." or > "Italians always ..." fill in the blank. > > Snobs, however, generally attach great importance to wealth, position, > popularity, presumed (or assumed) quality, etc. and generally show > contempt for anything they feel isn't up to those (usually synthetic) > standards. They also generally like to make a show of only having > associations with upscale people, things and settings. They are frauds, > often trying to imitate the people they think are better than they are. > > I think snobbery is a fearful state to live in. Always afraid that some > little crack will show in the carefully arranged facade. People who try > to make their judgements of what foods are good and bad stand as valid > measure. As though somehow there's a moral judgement to attach to which > foods we like. People who insist that some foods are somehow *always* to > be eschewed while some food is the *only thing to ever use* are snobs > who've never enjoyed or understood the value of appreciating things for > themselves. > > Different circumstances dictate different solutions to different > questions. For a Saturday afternoon football extravaganza with the guys > featuring a vast tray of nachos with melty cheese, salsa and great gobs > of sour cream, the setting demands Velveeta for all its properties. For > a setting where the food is the center of events, an aged, artisanal > cheddar might be appropriate. But neither is good or bad, absolutely, > and ascribing rightness or wrongness to either is snobbery. Choosing > what to eat or not eat is a matter of personal preference, and de > gustibus est non disputandum. > > There's no disputing about taste. Agree or disagree, there's no inherent > quality to anything. > > Pastorio (UK ref) Hyacinth Bucket ('Bouquet') = case in point ',;~}~ (http://www.beebfun.com/kua.htm) Shaun aRe |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Michael Odom wrote:
> On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:07:34 -0400, "Bob (this one)" > > wrote: > >>Different circumstances dictate different solutions to different >>questions. For a Saturday afternoon football extravaganza with the guys >>featuring a vast tray of nachos with melty cheese, salsa and great gobs >>of sour cream, the setting demands Velveeta for all its properties. For >>a setting where the food is the center of events, an aged, artisanal >>cheddar might be appropriate. But neither is good or bad, absolutely, >>and ascribing rightness or wrongness to either is snobbery. Choosing >>what to eat or not eat is a matter of personal preference, and de >>gustibus est non disputandum. >> > > I don't think I'd go that far myself. Ok. I posted this to see who would go how far. I just made a mark on the door frame to show how far you'd go. <g> > Though I confess that the whole > "best way to make coffee cake" premise of America's Test Kitchen does > chap my sensibilities. I agree. I don't like that competitive cooking thing very much. I've had to evolve answers for when people call me on the air and ask for the best recipe for __________. I usually ask them for the name of their one favorite song. Virtually nobody has a unique fave. And on the extremely rare occasions when people were able to drop one in, I ask if it's always been their fave. They've all stumbled on that one. > Also your post brought to mind Anthony Bourdain's comments that great > cooking comes from kitchens untroubled by an abundance of cash. His > argument is that really good cooking comes from people who have to > make tasty things out of very little. He cites rural France and > Italy, Vietnam, and the American South as examples. That's ok, a far as it goes. But you may be most certain that demi-glace didn't come from a poor kitchen. Nor puff pastry. Nor most desserts. I agree that simple cooking as the peasantry are inclined towards can be richly satisfying and interesting. But please don't confuse stick-to-the-ribs cooking with the more complex and subtle foods from the wealthy kitchen. I've had lots of great food from home kitchens. And I've had lots of not great food from fancy restaurants. But I'm not willing to assert the superiority of one over the other. >>There's no disputing about taste. Agree or disagree, there's no inherent >>quality to anything. >> > Don't know about that, Bob. > > I once had lunch here in Cow Hill with a guy who knew tons about New > Orleans. He had some sort of trust fund and a real interest in > hipness of thought, deed and desire. I told him how much I loved the > fried oyster po boys at a joint near the French Market in the Quarter. > Joint was called Fiorello's, I think. Amazing, sez I, such breading! > Such bread! Beer was chilled! He said he thought he knew the place: > "It's got a wood-fired oven." I haven't ventured into the kitchen at > Fiorello's, but from the look of the place, they're surely proud > they're able to afford gas. > > He was a snob. > > I once had dinner in a centuries-old mansion in the colonial district > of Santo Domingo. We'd arranged to rent a house on the beach on the > north side of the island, but had to cash out because of some > political troubles that made driving there impossible according to our > host. So we had a beach house in pesos to eat. We ate it. All > appetizers, wine, and desserts. It was delightful. It was better > than Fiorella's po boys, even. > > I once ate a pizza at a place called Aldo's in St. Remy de Provence. > I think it was the best pizza I've ever had. I remember gorgonzola > and a thin crust. Aldo's has a wood-fired oven. > > Hope that doesn't put me in league with that silly snob. A good bit of the judgement we offer for meals and other culinary events is the setting. Good company and good spirits make things taste 27% better. And if there's a decent wine with it, it goes up to 41%. But, seriously. I remember every detail of a meal I had in a sailplane over the alps. The food was relatively ordinary, but we were flying silently, often above the clouds and it was a new sensation and literally thrilling. > Only superficial people don't judge by appearances. > -- Oscar Wilde I agree with Oscar. Of course we form *part* of the judgement of people based on appearance*S* - not only physical appearance. Appearances include how people speak, what they smell like, how mannerly they are, how sincere they seem to be and all the other reasonable criteria we apply. And that's the first level test. From there we move on to more subtle and sophisticated criteria to decide if they can become friends. But if we make an immediate and final judgement to reject them based on their shirt or haircut or the brand of their shoes, then it's snobbery. Appearances are what we perceive with all our senses. Factoring them together is what gives us a more developed standard for judging wisely. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
zxcvbob wrote:
> Bob (this one) wrote: > >> Different circumstances dictate different solutions to different >> questions. For a Saturday afternoon football extravaganza with the >> guys featuring a vast tray of nachos with melty cheese, salsa and >> great gobs of sour cream, the setting demands Velveeta for all its >> properties. For a setting where the food is the center of events, an >> aged, artisanal cheddar might be appropriate. But neither is good or >> bad, absolutely, and ascribing rightness or wrongness to either is >> snobbery. Choosing what to eat or not eat is a matter of personal >> preference, and de gustibus est non disputandum. > > Velveeta is too pretentious. ;-) > > Try using American cheese sandwich slices instead of Velveeta next time > you make gooey melty cheesy stuff -- and if possible make sure the label > says something like "Pasteurized Processed American Cheese", not "cheese > food" or "cheese product". You'll thank me. <LOL> "Velveeta is too pretentious." I must admit it's not a sentence I ever expected to read anywhere. Maybe a year ago, I bought Velveeta at Costco where it comes in two huge loaves to the pack. It was for a get-together at a friend's house for a group of maybe 20 guys for no good reason beyond hanging out with sympatico folks. I elected to bring nachos. Bought several different bags of corn chips (blue, white, yellow, fried, baked, etc.) and arranged them in pleasing patterns on two enormous trays (full-sized commercial baking trays). Bought three different salsas; med, hot, and holy crap. Giant container of sour cream. And Velveeta. Melted one with some cream and poured it all over the chips. Arranged everything nice and pretty. Feeding frenzy. Gone in minutes. But I must try your "improved" version the next time we get together, likely 4th of July. The group is not at all bashful about passing judgements or the evidence of their meals. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Shaun aRe wrote:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message > >>Snobs are people who judge others or things on inappropriate criteria. >>Basing the judgement on settings or conditions that don't really have to >>do with the central question. >> >>There's no disputing about taste. Agree or disagree, there's no inherent >>quality to anything. >> >>Pastorio > > (UK ref) Hyacinth Bucket ('Bouquet') = case in point ',;~}~ > > (http://www.beebfun.com/kua.htm) Perfect illustration. She absolutely defines it. <LOL> It was one of my PBS rebroadcast faves back when... Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Del Cecchi"
> wrote: > "Curly Sue" > wrote in message > ... (snippage) > > It seems you recognize that there are criteria for quality in kiwis, > > namely flavor, color, texture. > > > > All of the examples you given are of people who don't know what they > > are talking about. Those who are food snob-wannabes without doing > > their homework to find out what quality is, relying instead on > > (generally) correlated indicators such as price and name brand. > > > > Sue(tm) > > Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! > > Quality is conformance to specification. Read any quality > engineering book, ask any industrial engineer. > > Is a horse higher quality than a duck? Meaningless question. Is > Fois Gras higher quality than liverwurst? Likewise a meaningless > question. > > del cecchi What happens when there's disagreement about the specs, Del? -- -Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 5/8/05. "Are we going to measure, or are we going to cook?" -Food Critic Mimi Sheraton |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob (this one)" > wrote:
>Different circumstances dictate different solutions to different >questions. For a Saturday afternoon football extravaganza with the guys >featuring a vast tray of nachos with melty cheese, salsa and great gobs >of sour cream, the setting demands Velveeta for all its properties. Anybody who eats Velveeta is all right in my book <G>. I thought it was a food group, BTW, not something to be ashamed of. -- The Doc says my brain waves closely match those of a crazed ferret. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 09 May 2005 05:46:14 -0400, "Bob (this one)" >
wrote: >Curly Sue wrote: >> On Sun, 08 May 2005 21:34:54 -0400, "Bob (this one)" > >> wrote: >> >>>Curly Sue wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:07:34 -0400, "Bob (this one)" > >>>>wrote: >>>> >>>>>There's no disputing about taste. Agree or disagree, there's no inherent >>>>>quality to anything. >>>> >>>>Yes there is :> >>> >>>Really? Define it for me, could you...? And do try to make it >>>independent of opinion... >> >> Superior, excellent. The properties that define "quality" depend on >> the individual item. > >Not definitions. Quality is a general assessment against a defined >standard. It doesn't mean superior or excellent. You're trying to define >"quality" as "good" rather than using more neutral words that simply >describe the place on the yardstick the particular thing falls. If so, I'm in good company. I checked the Merriam-Webster definition first. You are using the technical sense of the word. For example, engineers have a specific definition for "stress" that differs from the sense that biologists do. >Quality is measurement against some specification. > > > For example, for singing, I have a really bad >> voice. Most people would agree, and so would you. I doubt you'd pay >> for a CD by me. > >Ok, what does having a bad voice mean? Can't sing on key? Can't hold a >note? Isn't a full-bodied voice? Doesn't put emotion into the song? >Can't involve the listener? Sings through the nose? >There are many, many criteria that people will apply to what's high >quality. Louis Armstrong mesmerized audiences and had a voice that >violated many of the above. He had a scratchy voice, couldn't hold a >note and more spoke than sang. But when he sang, the room was quiet >until he finished. Joe Cocker. Mick Jagger. Dylan. Are these people good >singers? Tell that to their millions of fans. Certainly within their genre, people enjoy listening to them for their interpretation of songs. As musicians and entertainers, they are tops. But the quality of singing skill is different than for "voice." >The designations of the quality continuum from "This represents low >quality" to "This represents high quality" goes through a very wide >middle. And is subject to honest disagreement. According to your previous definition, quality involves meeting a set of specifications. Thus there is no continuum. >> Ask people who buy beef for a living if there is such a thing as >> "quality," and if so, how do they judge? Probably different from how >> my voice is judged. >> >> But there are objective standards for many things, on which experts in >> a particular area agree. > >There are *no* objective standards when judging quality. Those people >who buy beef have established criteria for assessing beef. They use >descriptions like "well-marbled carcass" and "well-formed carcass" and >"no obvious wounds" to characterize it. It's not at all objective. It's >narrower for an experienced inspector, and that fact says it's acquired >judgement. Not objective, learned. And measured against some pretty >loose standards. Yet, somehow the buyers for Peter Lugers and the great NYC steakhouses seem to acquire beef that many people consider of better quality. And it ain't all in the cooking. >>>I listen to people get all worked up about some food thing as though it >>>came in one of those double-packs where one is the food and the other is >>>a concentrated reduction of pure evil, all sneeringly described. I >>>listen to people raise their pinkies and hold forth about the One True >>>Way to Boil an Egg or the One True Way to Make a Burger and I can only >>>laugh. It's as though those fools can't imagine an alternative to their >>>perfection. It's deciding before the fact. >> >> Simply because there are people who act as you describe doesn't mean >> that there are no standards of quality. > >There are all sorts of standards. All subjective. And if they enjoy >large currency, shared. But not objective. Certainly there are all sorts of standards. But someone who cares about food would have a higher standard, and rightfully so. >>>>Seriously. You might think that snobs lack certain human qualities, >>> >>>Backwards. I think that snobs have too much of one human quality, and >>>this use of the word is different than what I mean above - here it >>>merely means attributes. The string of human attributes most people like >>>includes decisiveness; directness in decision-making. Snobs make >>>decisions quickly but based more on on irrelevancies than the >>>characteristics of the situation at hand. >> >> Not really. You are making a snap judgement of everyone who has >> standards. > ><LOL> No. I'm making a judgement based on long experience. Lots of >people have fooled me over the years with their pretensions and apparent >expertise. Later, I learned that there are several criteria that >generally point to the snob. They generally devolve to people making >decisions based on irrelevant criteria. > >Not snap at all. More than a half century of evaluations based on >congruency between words and deeds. Just like those experts, a lot of >information has gone into forming that standard of judgement. The problem, then, is that you've run into low quality food snobs. >>>>and perhaps you're right, but there is such a thing as quality, in >>>>food and other things. >>> >>>Nah. It's all a construct. We create definitions and fit things to that. >>>And like all things based on opinion, they're individual. There's >>>nothing inherently of better quality in a hot dog versus some artisanal >>>German braunschweiger. Neither is of better or worse quality unless >>>fitted to a created definition of quality. All such definitions are >>>artificial statements not reflective of any absolutes - they're opinions. >> >> Generally based on consensus. Regardless of who makes them, there are >> bad and better hot dogs. The decision should be based on samplings, >> of course, but often generalizations can be made. > >Yep. You're getting closer. The criteria are made up. If we agree with >them, we accept them. If not we don't. And if a lot of people agree, >then it becomes a conventional wisdom. But be cautious about this >because conventional wisdom need not necessarily be wise. Remember when >the conventional wisdom was that searing sealed in the juices of roasts? >To get a "good" roast, you had to seal in the juices. Nope. You're getting farther away. First, assessing quality has nothing to do with "conventional wisdom." What you're arguing against is the idea that conventional wisdom is wrong, i.e., that there are no higher standards than those promulgated by any individual. Second, you're confusing the method with the end. It doesn't make any difference *how* you get to a "good" roast, the idea is that there is such a thing as a "good" roast. >>>Diamonds are no more reflective (heh) of high quality than any other >>>stone. It's teh characteristics we've assigned that make it more or less >>>valuable and, by snobbish values, more desirable. It may not be prettier >>>than another stone. It doesn't haev to be; it's a DIAMOND. >> >> >> You're confusing desirability with quality and comparing apples to >> oranges. > >Not really. I'm illustrating the attitude of the snob. > >> "Quality" is something that is judged within a class. >> There are better and worse quality diamonds. Few people would trade >> an industrial diamond for an excellent sapphire, assuming that they >> knew what they were doing, or trade a sapphire for a brick. Within >> the category of diamonds there are measurable characteristics that >> determine value and an appraiser can do that job. > >Yep. And when you get their "4C's" of quality evaluation, it gets >interesting. Look this over and see how objective it looks to you. ><http://www.diasource.com/fourcs.htm> And then tell me why two experts >will give different judgements about diamonds, as happened with an >heirloom we had appraised. The difference was about 18% from the highest >to the lowest. All based on their quality judgements. I'm not sure that 18% is all that much variation. Take the diamond to the mall and ask people passing by how much it is worth, then report back on the variation. My guess is most people will be heavily influenced by the size of the stone and setting and unable to judge the quality of the diamond. You will see a much, much greater variation than you did between those experts you've already consulted. But the real test is to give an industrial diamond and a jewel to 100 appraisers and see if they can tell the difference in quality. >The gem guys have gone very far in trying to define their criteria, but >their standards are finally just as arbitrary and anyone else's; made up. > >> Within the category >> of "bricks," a mason could probably evaluate high and low quality >> bricks better than a jewelry appraiser. > >That's a matter of experience, not objectivity. Don't confuse time on >the job with being able to see "objective" quality assessments. That's one of the things that makes an expert: "time on the job." And you don't have to think long and hard to figure out why. >>>>Whether or not people are able to or choose to >>>>go for the quality, is a different matter. >>> >>>Exactly so. And not what I'm talking about. We all have our ideas of >>>what quality is in most things. And we all hide it when we do something >>>that contradicts what we've said publicly about our standards. So we >>>sheepishly admit to those guilty pleasures we've heard others put down. > >> That doesn't mean that we don't recognize that we're slumming. I like >> Hershey kisses, but that doesn't mean that I can't tell the difference >> between Hershey's chocolates and Jacque Torres'. >> >> A food snob wouldn't eat Hersheys. OK. I can deal with that. It >> doesn't make me angry and I don't see why it bothers other people. > >Here we come to a crucial point. Liking Hershey kisses says you find >their "quality" not just acceptable, but desirable. > >Whether it's as good as what Torres can do is irrelevant since he >doesn't *make* chocolate, he buys it. And makes it into things. <LOL> You're groping. We all know that J.T. doesn't have a plantation in Brooklyn (or anywhere else). I'm not sure why it was so important for you to state the obvious but golly, I knew that. Nonetheless, let's deal with your "crucial point." Despite liking Hershey's kisses, I can tell that the chocolate J.T. sells is of higher quality. There is no doubt. The fact that I like Hersheys doesn't mean that I'd ever argue that its quality is equal to a finer chocolate. >There are smoother chocolates and coarser ones than Hershey makes. >Mexican chocolate is gritty and it seems that the people who buy so much >of it think it should be that way; after all that's where it originally >came from. Other people like it to be very smooth with no discernible >granularity. That has become a judgement point for the quality of the >chocolate in many places, but it's certainly not an objective standard. Well, yes, in fact that's a good example of an objective standard. >> An expert in a particular area knows the criteria that mean quality in >> an item. In some cases, that is related to the manufacturing process >> which makes a difference in a material way. > >Like the chocolate guy above would. But that's because he's working to a >specification, not because of any objective standards. He knows if the >characteristics of the chocolate fall within certain boundaries, it will >be seen as a certain quality level; already defined by specifications. >But, again, not objective. A specification is an objective standard. >> For example, I would >> expect a carpenter to know the different characteristics of wood and >> ideally how the wood is processed and how that makes a difference in >> the finished product. >> >> If you had a house built, you'd probably be very, very interested in >> the "quality" of the materials used and drop all the "it's just >> opinion" stuff. > >You're missing the essential point. That "quality" is predicated on >experience in the past for wood used in similar situations and how well >it performed. That judgement of how well it performs is not objective. >There are many variables that have to enter the consideration. More >realistic to judge based on appropriateness. It rains a lot where I >live. Adobe won't work. The best adobe in history won't work. So in your house you'd be happy with inexpensive molded-plastic molding around the ceiling because it would last eons more than hand-carved oak? My $10 plastic lawn chairs perform well. They hold people off the ground in comfort and wash off with a hose. Someone in the Hamptons wouldn't be caught dead with those chairs, choosing instead some expensive lawn furniture. You would call them snobs and insist that there is no issue of quality. I disagree with you. The fact that the chairs are acceptable to me doesn't mean that I can't see that there are higher quality chairs. Quality doesn't only include performance, it also includes beauty and craftsmanship. Beauty and appreciation of craftsmanship may be in the eye of the beholder, but I say that if someone couldn't see the difference in beauty and craftsmanship in an expensive set, they are blind. >>>a labeling convention forced on us by our government. In blind taste >>>tests, the folks at Cooks Illustrated found that their experts preferred >>>imitation vanilla to "the real thing" (love that expression, as though >>>one way of doing it is absolutely correct and anything else isn't). >>>Never mind that different manufacturers of vanilla extract process their >>>beans differently. >> >> Imitation vanilla is synthetic and the "real thing," no matter how >> it's produced, is extracted from vanilla beans. That was easy. > >Thank you. You showed that definitions don't determine/affect quality. You're welcome. But what I really showed is that the "real thing" means something and imitation is synthetic. Any extrapolation of that is imaginary. > >You'll find that most well-defined specifications don't have all those >emotional words attached to them. They'll characterize by number (#1, >#2, #3, etc.) or they'll use differing names (prime, choice, select - >that call for you to know the definitions before you can distinguish >between them). Grade A butter. Grade AA butter. You don't know until you >get more info. > >> In this case it had no bearing in the taste tests of Cook's >> Illustrated, so that "quality" of the finished product was not >> dependent on the source of the flavor. Try doing that with strawberry >> and see if they can't tell the difference between real and imitiation >> flavoring. > ><LOL> Visit a flavor house sometime and see what they can do. ><http://www.nypress.com/16/41/food/foos2.cfm> <LOL> That was pretty worthless. It didn't address the issue of how well artificial strawberry flavoring matches the real thing. You might be able to find one if you look harder, but I doubt it. >>>People wouldn't buy "Chinese gooseberries" but scarfed up "kiwi fruit." <snip> >> All of the examples you given are of people who don't know what they >> are talking about. Those who are food snob-wannabes without doing >> their homework to find out what quality is, relying instead on >> (generally) correlated indicators such as price and name brand. > >You miss the point *completely* on this. Snobs *don't* do the homework, >by definition. They make their judgements based on the wrong things. The >wrong criteria. The wrong rationales. To keep up with the Joneses (or >try to surpass them). To live higher than their income permits for the >sake of the show. To join the club for the cachet rather than for the >club. To buy what others have told them is the best, whether they really >know or not. There's a contradiction there. You say that snobs don't do the homework to determine quality but elsewhere say that quality is only a matter of opinion. If that's the case, then there is no "wrong things" and there is no homework to do. Everything is equally good and your major complaint revolves back to their attitude. What I disagreed with, and still do, is your statement that there is "no inherent quality" to anything. Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message ... > Food For Thought wrote: >>>As though somehow there's a moral >judgement to attach to which >>>foods we like. >> >> >> Visit egullet.com...where you have to write an essay to get in. Where >> you have to apologise for liking things like Mrs. Dash, and Miracle >> Whip. <<<eyeroll>>>> > > I played there for a short time. Too many aristocrats and self-appointed > trend setters. Too many people who know how the rest of us should eat. > BTDT... > Pastorio <snip> Snob: (N) 2. One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect. I know of people who affect this offensive air about jug wine that they 'prefer.' Would one call them a 'reverse snob' or are they still the kind of snob of whom you are defining as snob? Yikes, these people offend me much more than people who seem pretentious about obvious food/wine; i.e., parmigiano reggiano, etc. ad infinitum. Dee |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Bob (this one)"
> wrote: > Snobs are people who judge others or things on inappropriate criteria. > Basing the judgement on settings or conditions that don't really have to > do with the central question. I dated a guy once who corrected a waiter on the pronunciation of "claret". Waiter said CLARE-et. Date said, "Oh, you mean Clahr-A." Waiter didn't respond. :-0) -- -Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 5/8/05. "Are we going to measure, or are we going to cook?" -Food Critic Mimi Sheraton |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Del Cecchi" > > wrote: > >> "Curly Sue" > wrote in message >> ... > (snippage) >> > It seems you recognize that there are criteria for quality in kiwis, >> > namely flavor, color, texture. >> > >> > All of the examples you given are of people who don't know what they >> > are talking about. Those who are food snob-wannabes without doing >> > their homework to find out what quality is, relying instead on >> > (generally) correlated indicators such as price and name brand. >> > >> > Sue(tm) >> > Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! >> >> Quality is conformance to specification. Read any quality >> engineering book, ask any industrial engineer. >> >> Is a horse higher quality than a duck? Meaningless question. Is >> Fois Gras higher quality than liverwurst? Likewise a meaningless >> question. >> >> del cecchi > > What happens when there's disagreement about the specs, Del? > -- > -Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 5/8/05. > "Are we going to measure, or are we going to cook?" -Food Critic Mimi > Sheraton The exact specification or parameters is a separate issue. In the case of food, one can at least imagine that there would exist an "ideal example" and the characteristics of that example could be written down. In the case of something like brownies, it could involve the appearance, the texture, the taste such as sweetness etc. and the item under examination could be evaluated in comparison to the ideal. Or one could compare it to some minimum acceptable standard. One couldn't on the other hand say that brownies are higher quality than chocolate cake. But that is the engineer in me. del |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 8 May 2005 23:12:02 -0500, "Del Cecchi"
> wrote: <snip> >> All of the examples you given are of people who don't know what they >> are talking about. Those who are food snob-wannabes without doing >> their homework to find out what quality is, relying instead on >> (generally) correlated indicators such as price and name brand. > >Quality is conformance to specification. Read any quality engineering book, >ask any industrial engineer. Someday, when I suffer from insomnia, I might. I once participated in a workshop where I was the only non-engineer in the room. It was torture ;> Engineering doesn't own the term "quality." It was in the language before any engineering textbook. Aside from that, engineering terms sometimes morph to become useful in other fields. "Stress" is one example. The common usage may obliquely refer back to the engineering sense, but the equations are useless. Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bob (this one)" > wrote in message ... > Shaun aRe wrote: > > > "Bob (this one)" > wrote in message > > > >>Snobs are people who judge others or things on inappropriate criteria. > >>Basing the judgement on settings or conditions that don't really have to > >>do with the central question. > >> > >>There's no disputing about taste. Agree or disagree, there's no inherent > >>quality to anything. > >> > >>Pastorio > > > > (UK ref) Hyacinth Bucket ('Bouquet') = case in point ',;~}~ > > > > (http://www.beebfun.com/kua.htm) > > Perfect illustration. She absolutely defines it. <LOL> I know! Funny stuff... We used to say my Nan was just like her, heheheheheh... HOWEVER, my dear Nan had heaps of redeeming features ',;~}~ > It was one of my PBS rebroadcast faves back when... > > Pastorio Yeah, I used to enjoy it when I watched it years ago ',;~}~ Shaun aRe |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon 09 May 2005 06:09:03a, AlleyGator wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> "Bob (this one)" > wrote: >>Different circumstances dictate different solutions to different >>questions. For a Saturday afternoon football extravaganza with the guys >>featuring a vast tray of nachos with melty cheese, salsa and great gobs >>of sour cream, the setting demands Velveeta for all its properties. > > Anybody who eats Velveeta is all right in my book <G>. I thought it > was a food group, BTW, not something to be ashamed of. I like the Kraft cheese spreads in the little jars. -- Wayne Boatwright ____________________________________________ Give me a smart idiot over a stupid genius any day. Sam Goldwyn, 1882-1974 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message
... > In article >, "Bob (this one)" > > wrote: > >> Snobs are people who judge others or things on inappropriate criteria. >> Basing the judgement on settings or conditions that don't really have to >> do with the central question. > > I dated a guy once who corrected a waiter on the pronunciation of > "claret". Waiter said CLARE-et. Date said, "Oh, you mean Clahr-A." > Waiter didn't respond. :-0) Now THAT'S a funny story! LOL! -- Peter Aitken Visit my recipe and kitchen myths page at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Bob (this one)" > > wrote: > >> Snobs are people who judge others or things on inappropriate criteria. >> Basing the judgement on settings or conditions that don't really have to >> do with the central question. > > I dated a guy once who corrected a waiter on the pronunciation of > "claret". Waiter said CLARE-et. Date said, "Oh, you mean Clahr-A." > Waiter didn't respond. :-0) > -- > -Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 5/8/05. I've always wondered: if someone doesn't answer, what does that mean? Does it mean in this case, he wants to keep his job? Does it mean that it is not worthy of a response? Does it mean that he is dumbfounded that anyone would correct a waiter/somnier (sp?)? Does it mean that the person he would be responding to for making this correction isn't worth the breath? What does it mean? All or none of the above? Dee |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 9 May 2005 11:07:53 -0400, "Dee Randall"
> wrote: > >"Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message ... >> In article >, "Bob (this one)" >> > wrote: >> >>> Snobs are people who judge others or things on inappropriate criteria. >>> Basing the judgement on settings or conditions that don't really have to >>> do with the central question. >> >> I dated a guy once who corrected a waiter on the pronunciation of >> "claret". Waiter said CLARE-et. Date said, "Oh, you mean Clahr-A." >> Waiter didn't respond. :-0) >> -- >> -Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 5/8/05. > >I've always wondered: if someone doesn't answer, what does that mean? >Does it mean in this case, he wants to keep his job? >Does it mean that it is not worthy of a response? >Does it mean that he is dumbfounded that anyone would correct a >waiter/somnier (sp?)? >Does it mean that the person he would be responding to for making this >correction isn't worth the breath? >What does it mean? All or none of the above? >Dee Add to your list: Does it mean the person is thinking "I'm so embarrassed..." ;> Sue(tm) Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
One time on Usenet, "Bob (this one)" > said:
<snip> > People wouldn't buy "Chinese gooseberries" but scarfed up "kiwi fruit." > We consumers judged and condemned the fruit on its name, not its flavor, > color, texture, etc. Are "Chinese" gooseberries anything like regular gooseberries? I loved those as a kid, very tart... -- Jani in WA ~ mom, vid gamer, novice cook ~ "The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't" - D. Adams, HGTTG |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dee Randall wrote: > "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Bob (this one)" > > > wrote: > > > >> Snobs are people who judge others or things on inappropriate criteria. > >> Basing the judgement on settings or conditions that don't really have to > >> do with the central question. > > > > I dated a guy once who corrected a waiter on the pronunciation of > > "claret". Waiter said CLARE-et. Date said, "Oh, you mean Clahr-A." > > Waiter didn't respond. :-0) > > -- > > -Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 5/8/05. > > I've always wondered: if someone doesn't answer, what does that mean? > Does it mean in this case, he wants to keep his job? > Does it mean that it is not worthy of a response? > Does it mean that he is dumbfounded that anyone would correct a > waiter/somnier (sp?)? > Does it mean that the person he would be responding to for making this > correction isn't worth the breath? > What does it mean? All or none of the above? What it might mean is that the waiter was better bred/politer than the diner, as the diner's pronunciation was wrong and the waiter didn't correct him. Mac |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Gal Called Jani wrote:
> One time on Usenet, "Bob (this one)" > said: > > <snip> > >>People wouldn't buy "Chinese gooseberries" but scarfed up "kiwi fruit." >>We consumers judged and condemned the fruit on its name, not its flavor, >>color, texture, etc. > > Are "Chinese" gooseberries anything like regular gooseberries? I loved > those as a kid, very tart... Chinese gooseberries are kiwi fruit. Renamed. Pastorio |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 08 May 2005 20:46:28 -0500, Damsel >
wrote: >Cornmeal mush vs. polenta. Boiled peanuts vs. edamame Tara |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
One time on Usenet, "Bob (this one)" > said:
> Gal Called Jani wrote: > > One time on Usenet, "Bob (this one)" > said: > > > > <snip> > > > >>People wouldn't buy "Chinese gooseberries" but scarfed up "kiwi fruit." > >>We consumers judged and condemned the fruit on its name, not its flavor, > >>color, texture, etc. > > > > Are "Chinese" gooseberries anything like regular gooseberries? I loved > > those as a kid, very tart... > > Chinese gooseberries are kiwi fruit. Renamed. I guess that should have been obvious, now I feel silly. But it never occured to me that anyone would rename produce... -- Jani in WA ~ mom, vid gamer, novice cook ~ "The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't" - D. Adams, HGTTG |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Dee Randall"
> wrote: > "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Bob (this one)" > > > wrote: > > > >> Snobs are people who judge others or things on inappropriate criteria. > >> Basing the judgement on settings or conditions that don't really have > >> to > >> do with the central question. > > > > I dated a guy once who corrected a waiter on the pronunciation of > > "claret". Waiter said CLARE-et. Date said, "Oh, you mean Clahr-A." > > Waiter didn't respond. :-0) > > -- > > -Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 5/8/05. > > I've always wondered: if someone doesn't answer, what does that mean? > Does it mean in this case, he wants to keep his job? > Does it mean that it is not worthy of a response? > Does it mean that he is dumbfounded that anyone would correct a > waiter/somnier (sp?)? > Does it mean that the person he would be responding to for making this > correction isn't worth the breath? > What does it mean? All or none of the above? > Dee I daresay in this situation it meant that the waiter knew my date was wrong but wasn't about to initiate conversation about it at risk of embarrassing my date in front of me and/or possibly reducing his tip. Or maybe deciding a correction wasn't worth the breath. (And it's "sommelier.") -- -Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 5/8/05. "Are we going to measure, or are we going to cook?" -Food Critic Mimi Sheraton |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article >, "Del Cecchi"
> wrote: > "Melba's Jammin'" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Del Cecchi" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Curly Sue" > wrote in message > >> ... > > (snippage) > >> > It seems you recognize that there are criteria for quality in kiwis, > >> > namely flavor, color, texture. > >> > > >> > All of the examples you given are of people who don't know what they > >> > are talking about. Those who are food snob-wannabes without doing > >> > their homework to find out what quality is, relying instead on > >> > (generally) correlated indicators such as price and name brand. > >> > > >> > Sue(tm) > >> > Lead me not into temptation... I can find it myself! > >> > >> Quality is conformance to specification. Read any quality > >> engineering book, ask any industrial engineer. > >> > >> Is a horse higher quality than a duck? Meaningless question. Is > >> Fois Gras higher quality than liverwurst? Likewise a meaningless > >> question. > >> > >> del cecchi > > > > What happens when there's disagreement about the specs, Del? > The exact specification or parameters is a separate issue. In the > case of food, one can at least imagine that there would exist an > "ideal example" and the characteristics of that example could be > written down. In the case of something like brownies, it could > involve the appearance, the texture, the taste such as sweetness etc. > and the item under examination could be evaluated in comparison to > the ideal. Or one could compare it to some minimum acceptable > standard. > > One couldn't on the other hand say that brownies are higher quality > than chocolate cake. > > But that is the engineer in me. > > del Understood, where a contest is involved. State Fair judges have particular specs for blue ribbon goods. Baked goods' include, color, tenderness of crumb, evenness of color, moisture, smell. Sweet spreads' include but are not limited to consistency, color, clarity, proper seal and processing method. -- -Barb, <http://www.jamlady.eboard.com> 5/8/05. "Are we going to measure, or are we going to cook?" -Food Critic Mimi Sheraton |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Food snob? | General Cooking | |||
| Food Snob | General Cooking | |||
| Food snob? | General Cooking | |||
| You Might Be a Food Snob If ... | General Cooking | |||
| I'm a food snob!!! | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
