LIVE TO EAT. It's what we're here for right?
- ceejoi Apr 27, 2007 10:31 AM
So I'm new to Chow and I use it alot to find places to eat. I usually make a decision based on what people write about their experiences.
I feel like I waste more time reading about some people having arguements about who's restaurant is better or "do you even know what authentic is?" than the actual food itself.
When someone poses the question: "What should I order here?" there should be suggestions right?
I thought this was a place were people talked about food - not if a person knows what authentic is or how much a person has eaten or if they even know how to eat a certain food or if they're even skilled or highly trained enough to eat.
Sometimes I'll want to write about food I've eaten but I'm almost afraid to because I don't want to get bombarded by replies saying, "You ate there?" um...yes I did!
If I'm wrong, please correct me. I don't want to leave this site!!
I understand - I'm fairly new to Chowhound myself, and when I first started posting about restaurants I'd eaten at and wanted to recommend, I'd sometimes get slammed about it.
If you read the basic tenets of Chowhound, they want everyone to keep an open-minded, tolerant view. I would wish some of us would remember that.
I would like to remind people of the word "polite".
Reference the 'Food Snobbery' thread that's been bouncing around awhile. At least some people admit they are food snobs!
I tend to ignore the "authentic" arguments. Everybody's idea of authenticity is different. There are plenty of authentic New York pizza places, but most are completely different from authentic Neapolitan pizza places in Naples Italy. One's not more "authentic" than the other; they're both good in their own ways. What matters is whether it tastes good.
What they need is a place that sells authentic Medieval meals, complete with grubby fingers, dogs eating off the floor, open latrines, cholera outbreaks, and nobody bathing. Then we could send all the authenticity fetishists THERE. It might suck, but hey, at least it's authentic!
Or, better yet, report the post to us. Our mantra here is "rate the chow, not the chowhound". We welcome diverse opinions on chow-- one hound's chow nirvana is another hound's chow hell-- but we don't welcome posts that review the reviewers. If someone disagrees with your opinion, they are welcome to do so by presenting their own opinion, not by slamming yours.
First of all, welcome. I'm another recent addition who's trying to get used to the way these boards work.
I think you'll find both kinds of people on any food board. I'm a simple person who just wants food that tastes good, regardless of the history or culture or authenticity. There are going to be people who, in my eyes, completely over-analyze a culinary situation. But I also try to see the chow world from their eyes. I think it's natural for people who are passionate about something to want to learn all they can about it. I also think it's natural to want to discuss their newly acquired knowledge with others who are educated on the subject. I think that's where you're seeing the arguments.
Personally, most of the "is this authentic" discussion is either over my head or just doesn't interest me. I do use many of the recommendations posted here, but I also ignore a lot of stuff.