HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

Discussion

Dinner: Impossible! Presented by The No-New-Ideas Food Network

I didn't think the idea behind this show was all that original the first time around, but somehow, it seemed to fit the personality of the first -- what was his name? you know, that Brit braggart who didn't always tell the truth -- host. But the Mission Impossible theme seems to be something that the powers-that-be at the FN are enamored of, so I'm wondering... Is someone in power at FN the writer/producer or otherwise connected with the original MI network series? I mean, even Bobby Flay has had it foisted on him in his Throwdown show. Don't get me wrong. I DID like the original "Mission: Impossible." Watched it regularly. But I thought it was too gimmicky for a really interesting show about food. Top that with that what's-his'name guy as its host, and it really washed it for me.

So WHY WHY WHY are they saddling Iron Chef Michael Symon with such an albatross? I really like this guy. His food chops are terrific, and I'd listen to a half hour show of him just laughing. He's contagious!

And I think he has earned better.

And deserves better.

SHAME on Food Networ!.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
Posting Guidelines | FAQs | Feedback
Cancel
  1. Uh, he asked for the job. Geez.

    And the show was good. As much as I do like Robert Irvine -- and I don't care if he blew up the freaking Effiel Tower -- liked his personality and his food and the show.

    That said, I think Symon did a cool job. Chocolate and bacon, yum!!!

    9 Replies
    1. re: HarryK

      I've had caramelized bacon and it is indeed good, but at what point do we stop? mmm type II diabetes.

      although I was impressed by the Maria d' Sangria.

      1. re: hill food

        >>No-New-Ideas Food Network

        What an excellent moniker for this formerly good channel.

        I feel so embarrassed for Alton Brown. I wonder why he doesn't have the dignity to leave?

        1. re: dolores

          I guess he likes the pay check.

          1. re: dolores

            I too feel embarrassed when I watch Alton Brown's silly histrionics on Good Eats. He can be brilliant, but I won't watch this show unless he's cooking something I'm really interesred in. If you cut out the sketches, he could cook twice as much.

            1. re: James Cristinian

              The silly histrionics is what originally drew me to the show in the first place. I think it is an essential part of the charm of the show, that they don't take themselves too seriously, I guess that is part of the DIY ethos of some of the earlier cable shows.

              To your point, I do think Alton has a tendency to overdo a lot of the funny stuff, so much so that it can get painful watching it. I think someone needs to be his editorial sounding board at all times, just so he doesn't verge off the path too terribly much.

              1. re: James Cristinian

                I strongly disagree. I think that is what makes Alton entertaining, plus you learn something just about every episode.

                He seems like he enjoys what he does, is having fun, and the cooking is always interesting. The food science additives are indeed interesting.

                Huge fan of Alton here.

                1. re: James Cristinian

                  Aww, come on. In Alton Brown's heart of hearts he's still an actor, and you KNOW how those guys love to play dress up! '-)

                  1. re: James Cristinian

                    I couldn't agree more.

                    With its obnoxious sound effects and annoying sketches, "Good Eats" is completely unwatchable. I don't care how much Alton Brown knows about food; his show sucks.

              2. re: HarryK

                okay by the end of it i was dying to try chocolate covered, almond dipped bacon myself.
                actually everything they made looked yummy. but (and i LOVE symon and his restaurants having lived in cleveland) gourmet street food was really up his alley.
                i'm sure just getting the hang of the show was hard enough.
                a bit gimmicky for me, but fun and in the end impressive looking food. i like that they looked like they were genuinely enjoying themselves. i'd watch again just to see what they make. :)

              3. I like the idea of taking an expert out of their environment and then watch them do their magic. It really shows what they are made of and it is interesting to see how their minds work. Having said that, I think they ran through most of the creative situastions they could put the hosts in after the first season with Robert Irvine. Now they are kind of grasping at straws. I also think that they are overdoing the dramtic music and the dramtic teasers before the commercials because they are so starved for show ideas. I have no problems with Symon wanting to do this, its kind of fun and adrenaline pumping for someone like him.

                What I really would like to see is some of these people working a regular shift, a la Bourdain and Ripert on No Reservations. Put Flay in a line as sushi chef, or putting RR on the grill all night long.

                1 Reply
                1. re: Phaedrus

                  "Put Flay in a line as sushi chef, or putting RR on the grill all night long."
                  ~~~~~~~~~~
                  Or how about having Sandra Lee cook using real (as in NOT pre-prepared) ingredients - think she'd know what to do with an onion that wasn't already chopped? Or how to make an angel food cake from scratch in which she had to fill the whole with real cooked apple slices instead of canned pie filling? ;-)

                2. I didn't like last night's ep at all. Irvine seemed tailor made for the show, I normally really like Symon but it seemed too "ace of cakes" too me. I don't think that his more subdued nature really worked well. I didn't like the extra focus on his assistants. I didn't really like watching them goof around on the bikes and such. A lot of the dialog seemed a lot more scripted/fake to me than with Irvine.

                  If that's how this show is going to be, I probably won't watch it - a lot of the stuff that "made" the old incarnation for me seems to have disappeared.

                  15 Replies
                  1. re: jgg13

                    I didn't like the show with Irvine, and I don't like it with Symon either. I'm not really into watching catering challenges. But I have to agree with you that Irvine seemed more appropriate for this type of show. And the narrator was terrible -- his pace was way too slow. Dragged the show down.

                    1. re: Miss Needle

                      I thought Symon *was* the narrator? Irvine always did it for himself.

                      1. re: jgg13

                        I didn't realize that Irvine did that for himself. Then those are two strikes against Symon!

                        I do like him in Iron Chef America. But I don't think he's the right fit for this show.

                        For those of you who are Irvine fans, he's got a blog now.

                        http://www.chefrobertirvineblog.com/i...

                        1. re: Miss Needle

                          Interesting little lovefest going on there. Not one bad comment? I guess there will always be supporters in full, which everyone commenting on that blog are; half-and-half support (believing parts of both arguments to be true), and those that just won't believe him, regardless. It seems none of those people either have posted or aren't allowed to have their potentially negative posts show up. ::::shrug::::

                          1. re: LindaWhit

                            Yeah, I caught that as well. Definitely a strictly moderated blog. I have a lot of respect for bloggers who allow both points of view to be displayed (but have no problems if they choose not to air hurtful, verbally abusive, non-constructive ones).

                            Irvine's actions support the whole musclehead theory about guys who bulk up having low self esteem.

                            1. re: Miss Needle

                              I agree re: bloggers who allow both sides to be aired in the comments section. This one most definitely does not.

                              And it definitely seems like he (RI) needs the fan stroking. I'm sure it sucked for him to have to had gone through all that earlier this year, but you reap what you sow. He was most definitely partly to blame for his own situation, and yet seems to be happy to have TFN take the brunt of his fans' negativity vs. saying "I lied, I was wrong; I'm moving on."

                              1. re: LindaWhit

                                I think Irvine needs to look at Rocco DiSpirito's example of rebuilding his career. Yes, Rocco is still thought of by some as a loser (I don't think the Bertolli connection helped). But I've been impressed by some of his blogging he's done for Top Chef. He knows how to poke fun of himself, analyze the show very thoughtfully, be humble and gracious. I think his work on Top Chef has been very instrumental to him trying to reestablish his credibility.

                                1. re: Miss Needle

                                  Agreed on the Rocco rebuild. While I was not a fan of the Bertolli pasta ads, his ability to discuss the episodes and write (really well!) about them, as well as be able to poke fun at himself and the earlier situation(s) he had gotten into notched him a few rungs on the respect ladder.

                                  And I agree with jlafler - it's an "illusion" of being open on RI's blog when it's obviously not.

                                  It shall be interesting to see what new show RI has in the works. Rumors have been the Travel Network a la Bourdain?

                                2. re: LindaWhit

                                  "He was most definitely partly to blame for his own situation..."
                                  .............................................LindaWhit
                                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  I don't understand how you consider Robert Irvine "partly to blame." He's the one who blatently lied about his accomplishments, and in my book that makes him 100% responsible for his situation.

                                  1. re: Caroline1

                                    Yes, I'm aware of that. He lied. I'm using his blog as his reasoning that TFN were the big, bad wolves who chased him down after they "discovered" he had lied.

                                    They could have nipped it in the bud a helluva lot earlier, but they didn't. I can't believe they weren't aware of it earlier than they claim to be. Thus, in my mind, they are to blame as well. He started it, they exacerbated it.

                                    Believe me - the LAST thing I'm doing is defending Irvine! If he had said "I lied, I was wrong" that might have garnered some sympathy. He hasn't - he seems willing to lay the blame on TFN.

                                3. re: Miss Needle

                                  It's the illusion of interactivity and openness that bugs me. It's his site, and it's his marketing tool; of course he doesn't want any negative comments. But it would be more honest just to disable the comments. Cheaper and easier, too. I guess they figure that illusion of interaction is worth something.

                                  1. re: jlafler

                                    I totally agree with it being more honest to just disable it if he can't deal with any criticisms being posted. And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these comments were generated by his PR folks.

                                  2. re: Miss Needle

                                    Low self esteem! I thought it was because he has a small ....

                                    OK, never mind.

                                    1. re: Phaedrus

                                      But doesn't a small _______ (fill in the blank) lead to low self esteem in most males in this society? ; )

                                  3. re: LindaWhit

                                    So Irvine can now point to his blog and say see 'every likes me'? His ego got him in to this mess. Wonder if if will happen a second time.

                          2. I turned it off after about 5 minutes, not because it was bad, but because I found it completely boring. I hadn't watched the show in a while and just tuned in this time because I thought that with a new protagonist it might be fresh.

                            1 Reply
                            1. re: jlafler

                              Agreed. I like Symon so I gave it a chance, but its relation to the prior Dinner Impossible implosion makes it hard to give it a fresh look.

                              It's kind of like the rock bands that go back on tour with a replacement of a key original... Pink Floyd, Queen, etc. They are making the same music but it just doesn't work for me because you end up comparing the before and after.

                              Sometimes you just gotta let things die and move on. Symon deserves a fresh show with a fresh premise.

                            2. Yes I did wonder the same thing, I was watching TNFStar in bed, fell asleep and the next thing I see is Michael Symon in a little surry thing-ama-bob, pedaling down the street. I couldn't figure out what the heck challenge he had the competitors doing now. OHHHHH.. and then I wake up.. Symon has replaced RI and is doing a challenge.

                              I think that FN scrambled and really had to get a move on sliding someone in that show fast. Someone that would work without too much notice, and somone that viewers would like and accept as a reasonable replacement. I think most of us like him well enough, and yes that laugh is crazy!

                              What a shame that RI left that dark cloud over that show, it was pretty entertaining at times. Last nighs show for me, had a cheap and cheesey look about it.. Just poorly done.Maybe they had to hustle production after figuring out they were no longer obligated to RI.....

                              Anyway for what it's worth, I sure wish I had that gazpacho in the lemon cups (when they're 5 for a dollar maybe). For me that bacon and chocolate... just makes my stomach turn to think about it.

                              1. I liked it pretty well. This show allows more opportunity for Symon's personality to shine than ICA does. I figure personality is a big part of the reason Symon is on FN. My only criticism is that Symon needs to come up with his own catch phrases instead of using Guy Fieri's. One guy on FN saying things are "money" or "off the hook" is enough.

                                3 Replies
                                1. re: Chimayo Joe

                                  Not to mention the fact that Fieri insists on saying it again and again and again. Its almost like he has the copyright on it or something.

                                  1. re: Phaedrus

                                    These guys are all just trying to coin a new "Bam!" '-)

                                    1. re: Phaedrus

                                      oh my i didnt like it either and I REALLY wanted to.

                                      The show doesnt seem to pop like it did with Irvine-maybe Symon will get into his own groove. I do like him just not this show.

                                      Btw I agree on the FieriTalk-what's up with that? Maybe they are friends IRL?

                                  2. I have not seen this new one. I always like Robert Irvine. I'm not sure if I loved the show itself as much as I loved seeing Irvine stomping in familiar Philly-area locales...I guess we shall see.

                                    1. symon came across as a smart, likeable guy. it was a pretty good show.

                                      1. Looking at recent history of TV personalities ...

                                        Rocco is back and forgiven.

                                        Bear Grylls (the host of Man vs Wild where he's in the wild for a week and was found sleeping in hotel rooms and faking things) never went away and is forgiven.

                                        Even Dog the Bounty Hunter after the racial stuff is back with a new season.

                                        I'd say Robert Irvine will be back in a year's time too. (Not on the Food Network), but back somewhere.

                                        I find these things are cyclical. Some folks in the past have done things and never came back. (Can't think of good examples right now, except Jimmy the Greek, hmm, and Marv Albert). But last couple years people -- or just TV networks -- are doing bigger things wrong and getting second chances. Even that radio guy, Imus is back.

                                        And it's taking a year not five for the come backs. So I expect RI will be back in some form in 2009 if the pattern holds.

                                        1 Reply
                                        1. re: HarryK

                                          And Martha Stewart....

                                        2. I prefer cooking shows, but I liked the show. RI was OK, but Symon is much more likeable and one of his assistants was hilarious. Bring 'em on!

                                          3 Replies
                                          1. re: Richard 16

                                            i liked the assistant as well. i agree with the previous poster who said it had an ace of cakes feel but that isn't necessarily a negative for me. that can be an entertaining show as well. the thing that bugs me with that is all the talk that their cakes aren't good - but i know symon's resume and have eaten his food on several occasions so i'm sure it's good.
                                            another thing that we CHs rarely think about but i was reminded of the other day by family friends: food network, through shows like ace of cakes and something like this one, do some very family friendly programming. there isn't a lot that parents and kids like to watch together but i know families that love ace of cakes (my kids are too little) and i bet they'd like the feel of this as well. it's something i rarely think about when i wonder about their demographic but there is VERY little i would want my daughter (now 5) to watch these days. since she loves to cook and bake with me she might like a show about disney princess cakes or a silly guy making tomato slushes while racing around on a boardwalk bike when she's 7 or 8 (or 12!) and i'd rather she not watch hannah montana. just a thought! mildly off topic but still...

                                            1. re: AMFM

                                              I thought that assistant was really a great addition to the show. His look reminded me of a Disney pirate. The thing I like about Symon, and also this assistant, is that they are not deadly serious about what is, afterall, an artificial "challenge". So what if they run over time. It's the Food Network. I'm sure they would just fake the time and make it happen.
                                              I may use that idea about the shrimp corn dogs, they looked good.

                                              1. re: lucyis

                                                That assistant was the funniest guy since that strange Italian guy that hangs with Jamie Oliver. I remember when Oliver battled Batali on ICA and even Mario was like, who is this crazy character?!

                                          2. I will tell you something with comparing the "new" DI to the old "DI" and then comparing it with Ace of Cakes .... Ever see the Canadian show "The Heat" with Mark McEwan? He's talented, handsome, personable. The show has top notch directing, editing. It's my least favorite show.

                                            Why? It's about a celeb chef who's doing catering and I hate to say it, after you've watch DI, and yes, after you've watched Ace of Cakes and seen a cake that took a week to make crumble in the back of the van 30 minutes before delivery ... the trials and tribulations of a normal caterer is boring.

                                            I know Chef June or someone is going to hit me over the head. I'm sorry. But when you've seen "I have two hours to feed 300 people and I'm using knives from the 14th century" and "the ovens they set up are natural gas and won't work with propane. There's 2,000 workers coming through those doors in three hours and I have nothing to cook with" after that such things as (and these are the real actual dramatic items from real The Heat episodes) such items as "will the yellow tail tuna arrive in time I have only six days" and "oh no if the orchestra performance goes too soon I will have 60 people to feed a whopping 10 minutes early" and "if we hold the meal outside, the wind will ruin things, I must make the client understand inside is better, well I be able to do this?"... uh, compartively noncompelling television. I am sure they are very very real and normal catering obstacles, but to me that's put-you-to-sleep television.

                                            1 Reply
                                            1. re: HarryK

                                              Well, the ONLY "reality' I see in these kinds of shows is that The Food Network (as well as too many other TV production entitites) thinks everyone in their viewing audience is dumber than a box turtle, and won't realize that these are heavily contrived, gimmicky innanities that have no connection with reality beyond how stupid they think we are. So if they want to hook us into their "Let's Pretend" game, at LEAST make it interesting!

                                            2. Agreed! This show was basically made for Robert Irvine. It sucks that he is gone, because it made for decent "I'll watch it if nothing else is on TV" :)

                                              1. we love Michael and were looking forward to this ep and while it was fun, I do think it's kind of a waste of his talents. I'm so sick of reality shows and "challenges," that are completely irrelevant, why can't he just have a cooking show? I mean, what is the point of having MS come in and cook "boardwalk" food for 300 workers. Maybe Petrozza from Hell's Kitchen, who now works for Aramark as I understand it, could take this on as a reasonable challenge related to what he actually does. I mean, maybe they should have a show where people have to cook on a desert island and there's no utensils or food so they have to make food out of dirt and leaves. ooooh, so creative and tough. /sarcasm

                                                4 Replies
                                                1. re: rockandroller1

                                                  Yeah, but you wouldn't kill for that chunk of lobster on top of the slushy gazpacho with vodka? Pretty creative stuff... makes you wonder if someone like Petrozza, who cranks out 300 servings a day without batting an eye, would even bother to come up with that kind of new idea. Chocolate covered bacon with almonds... if that's not a sign of a complete pork belly freak... I don't think that Irvine would have done either of those, which is why I think it's good to see Symon in there instead of him.

                                                  1. re: applehome

                                                    Oh he's definitely creative and I think he did a fantastic job with the show, as I'm sure he'll do with upcoming episodes. He's a very talented chef and a great guy to boot. I just wish they would have given him an original show, and wish in general that FN would do less "challenges" and more Julia-style, where you get to watch the person cook what they want to cook the way they cook it, which is why we really like them in the first place.

                                                    1. re: rockandroller1

                                                      I wholeheartedly agree. As Julia got older and after she had shown almost every dish and technique she knew multiple times, she had the brilliant idea of bringing on guests - particularly, accomplished young chefs, like Emeril. FN, on the other hand just allows popular chefs to beat themselves to death, then tries to extend their life by introducing shtick. Of course, some chefs have to have shtick from the beginning - things like big heads and big...

                                                      A Michael Symon show would be great fun to watch. Maybe his buddies Bourdain and Ruhlman would join him once in a while (FN has to forgive AB his sins first, but that usually comes pretty easy for a company that's based on profit over quality - Ruhlman was half of the Golden Clogs, and he's been forgiven).

                                                      But then people would complain about that maniacal laugh, the way they're complaining about Burrell's arm waving and grunting.

                                                      1. re: applehome

                                                        Ah, thank gawd for the iconoclasts! :)

                                                2. I enjoy Michael Symon when i have seen him on the regular cooking shows. I DONT like him on Dinner Impossible. I love Alton Brown no matter what he is doing. He is fun and totally informative. As to Rocco, he is simply a slime, plays dirty in business, is far too inflated with his ego and what he perceives as attraction to women, and if i hear about him or his mothers meatballs one more time i will vomit. I really liked Robert Irvine in Dinner Impossible. He really filled the bill. As to his resume and 'lying'. Try looking at what actors/actresses tell you about their past in a bio and then read their real story. This is show business, He does what he is paid to do. Your daughter isnt marrying him.

                                                  18 Replies
                                                  1. re: faleentoby

                                                    Basically, I understand what you're saying, but point of order: Actors and actresses weren't the ones who lied about their bios, the studios were.

                                                    1. re: Caroline1

                                                      Have to agree what actors do has nothing to do with Irvine? However, one only as to look at Giada to see the reliability of the resumes at FN. A cute girl who has gotten extremely far with a famous last name (not originally hers), very questionable 'talent' and past. She has always made it seem that she has gotten where she is by her experience and hard work.

                                                      Don't forget Irvine's antics and ego issues are not just limited to what happened at FN. There are also the matters of his actions in Florida. These most certainly played into FN's decision.

                                                    2. re: faleentoby

                                                      Wrong. His bio was what *he* submitted to TFN and had put out there before Dinner: Impossible show. So he's fully responsible for his bio. TFN is responsible for perpetuating the lies as I have to believe they knew about the incorrect CV before he was outed in the press.

                                                      1. re: LindaWhit

                                                        At the very least, TFN didn't do its due diligence.

                                                        Plenty of blame to go around, I say! Everybody involved is 100% guilty!

                                                        1. re: jlafler

                                                          Thats: "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!"

                                                          For you old Doonesbury fans.

                                                          1. re: Phaedrus

                                                            Marvelous Mark! Dang, I wish I'd thought of that.

                                                        2. re: LindaWhit

                                                          Ok, how about some facts. Of which there are very little of. Has anyone SEEN his EXACT resume? No. So how do we know what he said and didn't?

                                                          If he said he worked at the White House. He did. Not in the way the opening credits lead folks to believe, but he did indeed cook there and instruct there.

                                                          Did he work on the yacht for the British royal family in the kitchen? Yes. Did he cook for the queen and princes in that capacity? Yes. Did he cook for dignitaries, presumedly presidents and premieres and amabassadors? Yes. Again, the opening credits of Buckingham Palace was the producers.

                                                          My point is, there's a lot there where he may have told the truth and the producers blew it out of proportion for television. Since I doubt anyone, myself included, has seen the published resume or CV, we really don't know who overhyped what.

                                                          Since we may never know all the facts, I really hate to "sentence" someone when the evidence is not known and is partial and a lot of speculation. If this were a real court it would be thrown out. Mind you the court of public opinion here is much more emotional and leads so very little for a virtual "hanging".

                                                          For what he admited to in the interivews about saying at a bar that he was knight, and such he's admitted to. The rest is pure conjecture ... unless someone here wants to produce the resume. If so, I'm waiting. :)

                                                          1. re: HarryK

                                                            As I said before I think FN would have let things slide if had not told some huge lies in Florida that got him into some hot water and embarrassed FN. At the very least Irvine inhabited the grey area between truth and lies. Part of me thinks good for him he played the game and, for a time, won. But at the same time you play with fire and get burned. FN calls the Deen boys 'talent' so clearly they are not above pushing the truth.

                                                            Also have to add being a cook on Britannia does not mean you necessarily cooked for the Royal Family. He could just have easily have been the cook for the crew.

                                                            1. re: HarryK

                                                              Some easy Googling found this link - scroll down for more of the "what we know" section in this interview with RI:

                                                              http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/17/Sou...

                                                              "Irvine's bio on his own Web page lists a B.S. degree in food and nutrition from the University of Leeds. "

                                                              Response: "Sarah Spiller, a press officer at the University of Leeds: "We cannot find any connection in our records between Robert and the university."

                                                              Irvine claims in his book to have worked on the wedding cake for Prince Charles and Princess Diana, a claim he repeated to a number of locals.

                                                              Response: he told the Toronto Sun. "I worked on these elaborate side panels, which told the history of the royal Windsor and Spencer families - in icing!" True?

                                                              "I was at the school when that was happening," he said. "They made the cake at the school where I was." Did he help make it? "Picking fruit and things like that."

                                                              What about that knighthood?

                                                              Response: Jenn Stebbing, press officer at Buckingham Palace: "He is not a KCVO Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order and he wasn't given a castle by the queen of England."

                                                              Irvine's resume notes he has received a Five Star Diamond Award (not to be confused with AAA's five diamonds or Mobil's five stars) from the American Academy of Hospitality Sciences for several consecutive years. But as Radar magazine pointed out last year, the "academy" is housed in a Manhattan apartment, and recipients pay for the honor.

                                                              Irvine has been identified in several newspapers as a White House chef.

                                                              Response from White House Exec. Chef Scheib: "Irvine's ONLY connection with the White House is through the Navy Mess facility in the West Wing ... never in the period from 4/4/94 until 2/4/05 did he have ANYTHING to do with the preparation, planning, or service of any State Dinner or any other White House Executive Residence food function, public or private."

                                                              Asked to explain, Irvine said he trained military cooks at the White House.

                                                              Quite frankly, at this point, I'm going to believe the University of Leeds, Buckingham Palace, and the former White House Executive Chef before I believe Robert Irvine.

                                                              1. re: LindaWhit

                                                                Um, first you were only talking about his CV. Now you're talking about a book, a webpage and a bunch of other stuff. Well, oooook.

                                                                So glad we agree he cooked in the White House and worked for the royal family. :)

                                                                Fact is, he did a good job on the show. And if every single thing in his past was invented (which it wasn't) then how could he pull off what he did on the show each week so well. And the fact that he did pull it off well pretty much means he earned his spot on that show.

                                                                Again, people who lied on their shows like Bear Grylls never lost their shows and those weren't behind the scenes lies, but fakes that compremised the entire show's premise. And other's did much worse and are back. Just amazes me how people are so hard on this guy who's comparatively done less wrong.

                                                                Point is, he's no angel; that's for sure. I just get tired of hearing him spoken of as though the guy's evil incarnate.

                                                                Afterall, everyone knows it's Paula Deen who's evil incarnate enticing folks into having cardiac arrest with her goodies. LOL

                                                                1. re: HarryK

                                                                  CV, what he writes in his OWN book (a biography), a webpage interview in which he is quoted from the interview - it ALL is directly related to his PAST WORK HISTORY.

                                                                  And "teaching military cooks" does NOT mean he cooked for any Presidents.

                                                                  Picking out fruit does NOT mean he baked Charles & Diana's wedding cake.

                                                                  1. re: LindaWhit

                                                                    Linda, sigh, I'm trying to make a point which is not being conveyed well. That point is what he actually said and how it is then taken further away.

                                                                    For instance, first you said he said he "worked on the cake". Next post you changed that to how he "baked" the cake. Two different things. And THAT is my point which is being lost here or not conveyed correctly by me. Others and you yourself change the details from one thing to another thing. And I'm just trying to point out that by this time how do we know exactly how far from the original this has gotten.

                                                                    It reminds me of gossip. And an old comic in the Sunday paper where the kid hears his mother talking on the phone about losing a few pounds. It gets spread around she's fat. And by the time the gossip chain ends and gets back to her she's supposedly nine months pregnant. That's all I've been trying to say here.

                                                                    That said I'll stop now as I'm not being very successful in making my point.

                                                                    1. re: HarryK

                                                                      Harry - *I* didn't say he worked on the cake or baked the cake - Robert Irvine himself said that in the quoted article above! So your beef isn't with me - it's with him. *He's* the one who changes what he claims to have done (capitalization is my emphasis):

                                                                      he told the Toronto Sun. "I WORKED ON THESE ELABORATE SIDE PANELS, which told the history of the royal Windsor and Spencer families - in icing!"

                                                                      True?

                                                                      "I WAS AT THE SCHOOL when that was happening," he said. "THEY MADE the cake at the school where I was."

                                                                      DID HE HELP MAKE IT? "Picking fruit and things like that."

                                                                      So other than my slight miswording saying "picking fruit instead of baking C&D's wedding cake" (I should have said "helped bake it" whereas bake it/work on it means the same thing in this context), there really is no difference. He said he worked on it - he didn't.

                                                                      As for giving him a second chance - the fact that Robert Irvine has said he was aware that his CV was getting blown out of proportion early on before it got out of hand - THAT was the time he should have stepped up and said "sorry, that's not right; it needs to be corrected now", but he didn't.

                                                                  2. re: HarryK

                                                                    Harry,

                                                                    Granted this is not brain surgery, but there is a standard of professionalism. I expect to be told the truth when I hire someone.

                                                                    We have had the discussion before. To me, if he is going to lie on a resume, what is to keep him from lying to my face? Your argument have been that this is just a silly television show, that what he does should not matter, but as Linda pointed out, it does matter to the people who will potentially since a lot of money into his restaurant ideas. The fact that he lied on his resume won't affect how good his restaurant is, it will affect the way I think when I invest in his restaurants though because how can I trust him when he says he needs X amount of dollar to do something. How do I know he is not lying then?

                                                                    1. re: Phaedrus

                                                                      Phaedrus, it's not that I think lying is ok. I get your point and Linda's. I guess I'm just tired of the hearing the same horse beaten to death over and over -- and still with as much enthustic energy and bloodlust now as when it first went down. Especially when there's so much worse in the world.

                                                                      Other than that, yes, you, Linda and the others are correct. So shall we give him the electric chair or the gas chamber? Are we going to have this same discussion in September and November and January again? Guess those are the two points that tick me off a tad: the degree of over-enthusiasm and over importance given the matter and the repetition with just as much ire present.

                                                                      I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm into giving people second chances. Others are into fanning the flames and having hangings. I'm just consider myself an island of forgiveness in an ocean of discontent.

                                                                      1. re: HarryK

                                                                        I think the reason people are revisiting this issue is in response to Irvine's new blog. Essentially in it he says it's really not his fault, he didn't really do anything wrong, and he is really misunderstood and only positive comments are posted. He leaves out everything that happened in Florida . At least we know the man huge ego is still in tact.

                                                                        I do have to agree with you that people do 'pad' resumes all the time but there is a big difference in turning a 10 month experience into a year as opposed to saying the Queen has personally given you a castle.

                                                                        Certainly second chances are great but Irvines own deception caused this. What's to stop him from doing it again(since it was his fault)? I have to agree with Phaedrus why would I want to have anything to do with someone like that.

                                                                        1. re: HarryK

                                                                          Harry,

                                                                          WithNail42 summed it up correctly.

                                                                          What I see is a guy who purposely misled the viewing public, regardless of what role FN played in covering this up, he should stna dup and clear up the air: this line was a lie, this line was stretching the truth, and this line is the absolute truth. Apologize for misleading people and then move on. Instead he is seemingly trying to lay the responsibility on everyone but himself. I am all for second chances, if and only if they took responsibility for their first offense, or else they don't deserve a second chance.

                                                                          1. re: Phaedrus

                                                                            I've been mulling this over. All three of you make very good points. People who are liars should some how re-earn our trust, we shouldn't give it to them. And he hasn't done that, at least not yet.

                                                                            I concede -- happily. I'm not so stubborn as to not be persuaded by good arguements. :) If he wishes to seek "redemeption" the ball is in Irvine's court to make the first move.

                                                            2. Whether or not you like the show, to say it's not a new idea weems unfair. The show was a new idea when it started, and now it's the same idea with a different chef.

                                                              And where did you get the idea that the Mafia or some other criminal element is forcing Symon to take particular jobs?