As a number of you know, the LA Times food critic was "outed" by a new
Beverly Hills restaurant by taking her photograph and posting it on
the internet, among other things. Pretty damned short sighted for a
restaurant that wants to get anywhere in a city like LA, but there you
are. I find it hard to believe, however, that the Times' food critic
has been able to preserve her anonymity for 15 years in a city like
LA. Regardless of making reservations under various names, using
others' credit cards, etc., I can't imagine her walking into a
restaurant and not having the maitre'd, et al, recognize her and
scramble to alert the chef and serving crew.

Original article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2330320.story

The follow-up article:

http://www.latimes.com/features/food...,3870239.story

I also can't feature a new restaurant in as competitive a market as
Beverly Hills, where it is filthy expensive to even *open* a new
restaurant, nevermind maintain one, would do such a thing unless the
owners' sole purpose was the publicity, which it got in spades. Even
if it was only after the buzz the "outing" created, the ill will it
also created might trump whatever initial buzz was generated and last
a sight longer.

Oh, and does "outed" have one "t" or two? <g>

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd

--

"If the soup had been as warm as the wine,
if the wine had been as old as the turkey,
and if the turkey had had a breast like the maid,
it would have been a swell dinner." Duncan Hines


To reply, remove "spambot" and replace it with "cox"