eGullet article in the NY Times
- Scargod Mar 24, 2008 05:09 PM
RE: New York Times article about eGullet founders and members on the front page of the Dining section from last week.
I am surprised. Very surprised that I cannot find anyone commenting on this, here or on eGullet!
I have never been overweight and yet I love food. I love to cook it and I love to eat it. My motto is: If it doesn't smell bad, and is not moving, you can eat it. Yet, I eat in moderation; like knowing when to quit so you can fight another day.
The article portrays eGulleters as foodaholics that are constantly ravenous for high calorie food. Mostly it is centered around meat....
I have noticed that recently some of the most active members in the New England area on eGullet (my area), and some moderators involved, have been discussing sharing pigs. They have had feasts on fresh pig that they purchased, as a group. I switched to Chowhound, almost exclusively, because there was almost no activity in the New England region of eGullet. I wonder if there is any connection? Are the people visiting eGullet turned off by the obsession with gluttony, fat intake and pig eating parties?
As a participant in food forums I do not want the association with glutony, or excess, or those who do not care to pay attention to a reasonably balanced diet and their health.
Why is this not discussed in the forums of Chowhound or eGullet? You would think that, a: the NY Times has quite a sense of humor, writing this blasphemous article or b: more people (here or at eGullet) would be saying, "we're not fatties that are all about food and glutony, as descrbed!". Yet, I hear nothing related to the article. Nothing at all. Tell me it ain't so!
I guess I should apologize, but I first searched chowhound for nyt, new york times, perlow, obsession and eGullet and found nothing related to the article. Only when I had a perfect combination of two or more of these words or "fat pack" did it show. Same on eGullet. I searched before I spoke, but I didn't use the winning word combinations. I guess I'm used to Google's method of frequently used words having more importance and bringing up the current content I want.