The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant Impossible." I believe
that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I just did
not like. Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the cameras, but
I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick, however.

Well, anyway, the featured restaurant was called The Snooty Fox, which
was supposed to be modeled after an English pub. According to Robert
Irvine, the place did not look a thing like an English pub. However,
when they went into the kitchen it was just disgusting.

I got to wondering exactly whose fault it is that the kitchen was the
state it was in. I think it is mainly the fault of the owner and the
head chef to establish and maintain the standards. Even if he does not
know how a kitchen should be kept, it is his duty to learn.

The kitchen crew might actually do the cleaning, but it is still the
responsibility of the owner and head chef to enforce those standards.
Also I think if he cannot afford the help to keep the kitchen clean, he
needs to grab a washcloth and a broom and a mop and do it himself, after
all, it is his business.

If the head chef did not know how to maintain the cleanliness of a
professional, he should be fired for that. If the head chef knew this
and was just lazy, he should be fired for that. In fact, he quit the day
before Irvine showed up, I think in part so he would not be chewed out on
national TV for letting the kitchen get in the shape it was.

The owner said he had lost about a quarter of a million dollars in the
last year, by digging into his retirement and children's college fund. I
think the only way to keep from losing another quarter million, or going
bankrupt because I am not sure if he has that much, is to sell the place
as quickly as possible. He actually seems pretty clueless about how to
run a restauraunt, and without Robert Irvine there to guide him, will
just make all the same mistakes again.

Brian Christiansen

"Brian" <> wrote > The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant
Impossible." I believe
> that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I just did
> not like. Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the cameras, but
> I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick, however.
>
> Well, anyway, the featured restaurant was called The Snooty Fox, which
> was supposed to be modeled after an English pub. According to Robert
> Irvine, the place did not look a thing like an English pub. However,
> when they went into the kitchen it was just disgusting.
>
> I got to wondering exactly whose fault it is that the kitchen was the
> state it was in. I think it is mainly the fault of the owner and the
> head chef to establish and maintain the standards. Even if he does not
> know how a kitchen should be kept, it is his duty to learn.
>
> The kitchen crew might actually do the cleaning, but it is still the
> responsibility of the owner and head chef to enforce those standards.
> Also I think if he cannot afford the help to keep the kitchen clean, he
> needs to grab a washcloth and a broom and a mop and do it himself, after
> all, it is his business.
>
> If the head chef did not know how to maintain the cleanliness of a
> professional, he should be fired for that. If the head chef knew this
> and was just lazy, he should be fired for that. In fact, he quit the day
> before Irvine showed up, I think in part so he would not be chewed out on
> national TV for letting the kitchen get in the shape it was.
>
> The owner said he had lost about a quarter of a million dollars in the
> last year, by digging into his retirement and children's college fund. I
> think the only way to keep from losing another quarter million, or going
> bankrupt because I am not sure if he has that much, is to sell the place
> as quickly as possible. He actually seems pretty clueless about how to
> run a restauraunt, and without Robert Irvine there to guide him, will
> just make all the same mistakes again.
>
> Brian Christiansen

Two thoughts - I wonder how many restaurants we would stay and eat in if we
saw the kitchen first.
Second - With great anguish, I remember trying to get the office staff
to maintain some level of cleanliness and order in the break room. Mission
Impossible had nothing on that challenge. Polly

"Polly Esther" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brian" <> wrote > The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant
> Impossible." I believe
>> that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I just did
>> not like. Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the cameras, but
>> I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick, however.
>>
>> Well, anyway, the featured restaurant was called The Snooty Fox, which
>> was supposed to be modeled after an English pub. According to Robert
>> Irvine, the place did not look a thing like an English pub. However,
>> when they went into the kitchen it was just disgusting.
>>
>> I got to wondering exactly whose fault it is that the kitchen was the
>> state it was in. I think it is mainly the fault of the owner and the
>> head chef to establish and maintain the standards. Even if he does not
>> know how a kitchen should be kept, it is his duty to learn.
>>
>> The kitchen crew might actually do the cleaning, but it is still the
>> responsibility of the owner and head chef to enforce those standards.
>> Also I think if he cannot afford the help to keep the kitchen clean, he
>> needs to grab a washcloth and a broom and a mop and do it himself, after
>> all, it is his business.
>>
>> If the head chef did not know how to maintain the cleanliness of a
>> professional, he should be fired for that. If the head chef knew this
>> and was just lazy, he should be fired for that. In fact, he quit the day
>> before Irvine showed up, I think in part so he would not be chewed out on
>> national TV for letting the kitchen get in the shape it was.
>>
>> The owner said he had lost about a quarter of a million dollars in the
>> last year, by digging into his retirement and children's college fund. I
>> think the only way to keep from losing another quarter million, or going
>> bankrupt because I am not sure if he has that much, is to sell the place
>> as quickly as possible. He actually seems pretty clueless about how to
>> run a restauraunt, and without Robert Irvine there to guide him, will
>> just make all the same mistakes again.
>>
>> Brian Christiansen
>
> Two thoughts - I wonder how many restaurants we would stay and eat in if
> we saw the kitchen first.
> Second - With great anguish, I remember trying to get the office staff
> to maintain some level of cleanliness and order in the break room.
> Mission Impossible had nothing on that challenge. Polly

For a couple of years I was in charge of the break rooms at work. At that
point in time we had a men's and a women's room. The only reason for that
was that the men's room was at the back of the smaller room and there were
less men working there. That all changed when the non-smokers demanded the
larger room. Then the men complained that they didn't want to have to walk
through the smoke to get to the bathroom. That all changed again when the
whole place went non-smoking.

The weird thing was... The men's room was almost always clean! I only had
to do a quick swab of the microwave and the fridge but there was rarely ever
anything spilled in there. Now that could be because the men didn't use
these things much and bought their lunch instead. I don't know.

But the women's room? Eeek! Stuff constantly blown up in the microwave.
Stuff baked on stuff baked on stuff. Always stuff spilled in the fridge. I
did do the cleaning weekly (which really wasn't enough) and anything left in
there was thrown out. So nothing got the chance to go moldy.

"Julie Bove" > wrote

>
> The weird thing was... The men's room was almost always clean! I only
> had to do a quick swab of the microwave and the fridge but there was
> rarely ever anything spilled in there. Now that could be because the men
> didn't use these things much and bought their lunch instead. I don't
> know.
>
> But the women's room? Eeek!

Not so weird, really. Ask anyone in the janitorial business where the mess
is. I don't think any have ever said the women are cleaner.

When I was in junior high, we lived in housing held for incoming faculty, and the house had 9 bedrooms; naturally, my mom rented out 6 of them to students. The boys were absolutely great housekeepers without exception, and the girls' rooms were always a big mess. We had girl roomers only for one semester.

N.

Polly Esther wrote:

> Two thoughts - I wonder how many restaurants we would stay and eat in
> if we saw the kitchen first.

You're soooo right about that... a friend of mine bougth and run for 6 years
a restaurant in town, not far from he the rest of the restaurant got
cleaned by a professional team before they got in, so they had to clean-up
just the kitchen. He and his partner in the business had to hire 2 persons
to help in cleaning up and they all worked together for 12 days. To be more
precise: to clean only the *parts* of the kitchen they didn't throw in the
garbage.
That amounts to 4 persons for 12 days: 48 man/workdays.
--
ViLco
Let the liquor do the thinking

Did anyone watch "Rascals" on this week's Kitchen Impossible? My God! Thirteen (13) dead mice under the base of the coolers! Apparently, it has started to go back to what it was before Robert showed up - note on the door said it was temporarily closed (now) and there was a bunch of stuff already piled up on the patio and in the dining room. Sad, really, that the Tweedledum and Tweedledee married couple couldn't bring themselves to do any physical labor.

N.

On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:47:08 -0500, "Polly Esther"
> wrote:


>Two thoughts - I wonder how many restaurants we would stay and eat in if we
>saw the kitchen first.

Restaurant reviewer Elmer Dills used to say he made a point of
visiting the bathroom in any restaurant he was reviewing. He said you
could tell a lot about a restaurant's standard of cleanliness from how
they kept up the bathroom.

There are times I do not find this reasurring.

...................Karl

"Karl Lembke" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2011 20:47:08 -0500, "Polly Esther"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Two thoughts - I wonder how many restaurants we would stay and eat in if
>>we
>>saw the kitchen first.
>
> Restaurant reviewer Elmer Dills used to say he made a point of
> visiting the bathroom in any restaurant he was reviewing. He said you
> could tell a lot about a restaurant's standard of cleanliness from how
> they kept up the bathroom.
>
> There are times I do not find this reasurring.
>
> ..................Karl

I've walked out of places for that reason. I can think of at least three.
One was a major burger chain. My wife was in line while I made a quick
restroom stop. Of course, me being me had to call over to her and tell her
why we were leaving. Everyone at the counter heard me. A few others left
also. It was the most disgusting restroom I've ever seen.

On 8/9/2011 9:47 PM, Polly Esther wrote:

> Two thoughts - I wonder how many restaurants we would stay and eat in if
> we saw the kitchen first.
> Second - With great anguish, I remember trying to get the office
> staff to maintain some level of cleanliness and order in the break
> room. Mission Impossible had nothing on that challenge.

I used to work at an "off-site" facility for my job and they started up
a list of people to rotate kitchen cleanup. I told them if they ever
added my name for a weekly rotation I wouldn't do it. I don't make a
mess and I refuse to clean up after those who do when it isn't in my job
description.


--
Cheryl
Come carpe diem baby - Metallica

"Cheryl" > wrote in message
.com...
> On 8/9/2011 9:47 PM, Polly Esther wrote:
>
>> Two thoughts - I wonder how many restaurants we would stay and eat in if
>> we saw the kitchen first.
>> Second - With great anguish, I remember trying to get the office
>> staff to maintain some level of cleanliness and order in the break
>> room. Mission Impossible had nothing on that challenge.
>
> I used to work at an "off-site" facility for my job and they started up a
> list of people to rotate kitchen cleanup. I told them if they ever added
> my name for a weekly rotation I wouldn't do it. I don't make a mess and I
> refuse to clean up after those who do when it isn't in my job description.

At the job I had it was in the papers that we signed stating something like,
"And anything else that the boss decides is necessary". We were told if we
ever said, "That's not my job", we could quit right then and there. And it
did happen a few times.

"Julie Bove" > wrote
> At the job I had it was in the papers that we signed stating something
> like, "And anything else that the boss decides is necessary". We were
> told if we ever said, "That's not my job", we could quit right then and
> there. And it did happen a few times.
>

I've put that clause in every job description I've written. I never said,
nor do I want to hear "it not my job". Sure way to stall yourself in your
career.

"Ed Pawlowski" < wrote >
> "Julie Bove" < wrote
>> At the job I had it was in the papers that we signed stating something
>> like, "And anything else that the boss decides is necessary". We were
>> told if we ever said, "That's not my job", we could quit right then and
>> there. And it did happen a few times.
>>
>
> I've put that clause in every job description I've written. I never said,
> nor do I want to hear "it not my job". Sure way to stall yourself in your
> career.

Things I never wanted to hear:

I didn't break it, it was already broken
That's not my job and (!)
Nobody told me.

It was clear in our job description that if the flag pole needed painting
pink, it was Everybody's job. Lotsa folks didn't get hired. The ones who
did brought a paint brush. Just in case. Polly

Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>"Julie Bove" > wrote

>> At the job I had it was in the papers that we signed stating something
>> like, "And anything else that the boss decides is necessary". We were
>> told if we ever said, "That's not my job", we could quit right then and
>> there. And it did happen a few times.

>I've put that clause in every job description I've written. I never said,
>nor do I want to hear "it not my job". Sure way to stall yourself in your
>career.

I would say that what you are saying is a general truth but not
an absolute truth. If it's a true micromanaging boss, his or her
reports who do a bit of pushing back might well end up doing better
than the ones who slavishly obey.

Of course, upward delegation that stops short of outright insubordination
is a skill in itself.

Steve

On 8/10/2011 10:56 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "Julie Bove" > wrote
>> At the job I had it was in the papers that we signed stating something
>> like, "And anything else that the boss decides is necessary". We were
>> told if we ever said, "That's not my job", we could quit right then
>> and there. And it did happen a few times.
>>
>
> I've put that clause in every job description I've written. I never
> said, nor do I want to hear "it not my job". Sure way to stall yourself
> in your career.

I only said it once. I'm not that kind of worker, if something needed
doing I would pitch in no problem. Led to me doing other people's work
for them but that's another subject.

But I did have a kiss up boss, all he did was to make him look like a
hotshot to anyone else in any management capacity. A real empty suit.
He was okay once you got past that. Then he told me to go to some
other department I knew nothing about, still have no idea what they
did, and to code something into their programs. No. I can imagine
how the people who worked in the group would have felt about that
and how I could have messed up something but good.

Sure enough it was mentioned in my evaluation, Nancy, you told me
That's not my job! Paul, it wasn't my job. He'd forgotten what he'd
asked me to do so I reminded him. I asked you to do that?? Yeah, Paul.
Oh, I'm sorry.

But he sure remembered I'd said that. He didn't think it was weird
to complain about that right after saying We'd never have gotten
this project in if you didn't 'help' Ed and Cameron.

Ah, retirement, those days are behind me.

nancy

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:56:45 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> "Julie Bove" > wrote
>> At the job I had it was in the papers that we signed stating something
>> like, "And anything else that the boss decides is necessary". We were
>> told if we ever said, "That's not my job", we could quit right then and
>> there. And it did happen a few times.
>>
>
> I've put that clause in every job description I've written. I never said,
> nor do I want to hear "it not my job". Sure way to stall yourself in your
> career.
>

it's fairly common in government jobs. 'and other duties as directed,' or
something like that.

your pal,
blake

Ed Pawlowski wrote in rec.food.cooking:

>
> "Julie Bove" > wrote
> > At the job I had it was in the papers that we signed stating
> > something like, "And anything else that the boss decides is
> > necessary". We were told if we ever said, "That's not my job", we
> > could quit right then and there. And it did happen a few times.
> >
>
> I've put that clause in every job description I've written. I never
> said, nor do I want to hear "it not my job". Sure way to stall
> yourself in your career.

You'l have a problem then when you hire a person with a disability.
Although it's not been a problem, I have had to remind my boss once or
twice 'I can't do that'.

I don't have a problem though with all sorts of oddball help.

--

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:31:30 -0400, Cheryl >
wrote:

>On 8/9/2011 9:47 PM, Polly Esther wrote:
>
>> Two thoughts - I wonder how many restaurants we would stay and eat in if
>> we saw the kitchen first.
>> Second - With great anguish, I remember trying to get the office
>> staff to maintain some level of cleanliness and order in the break
>> room. Mission Impossible had nothing on that challenge.
>
>I used to work at an "off-site" facility for my job and they started up
>a list of people to rotate kitchen cleanup. I told them if they ever
>added my name for a weekly rotation I wouldn't do it. I don't make a
>mess and I refuse to clean up after those who do when it isn't in my job
>description.

Are you employed now?

Lou

On 8/10/2011 10:36 PM, Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:31:30 -0400, >
> wrote:
>
>> On 8/9/2011 9:47 PM, Polly Esther wrote:
>>
>>> Two thoughts - I wonder how many restaurants we would stay and eat in if
>>> we saw the kitchen first.
>>> Second - With great anguish, I remember trying to get the office
>>> staff to maintain some level of cleanliness and order in the break
>>> room. Mission Impossible had nothing on that challenge.
>>
>> I used to work at an "off-site" facility for my job and they started up
>> a list of people to rotate kitchen cleanup. I told them if they ever
>> added my name for a weekly rotation I wouldn't do it. I don't make a
>> mess and I refuse to clean up after those who do when it isn't in my job
>> description.
>
> Are you employed now?

Of course. Same company.

--
Cheryl
Come carpe diem baby - Metallica

"Brian" > wrote in message
...
> The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant Impossible." I believe
> that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I just did
> not like. Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the cameras, but
> I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick, however.

Ramsey does have a US version of Kitch Nightmars. Rest. Imp. is a knock off
copy.

>
> Well, anyway, the featured restaurant was called The Snooty Fox, which
> was supposed to be modeled after an English pub. According to Robert
> Irvine, the place did not look a thing like an English pub. However,
> when they went into the kitchen it was just disgusting.


> The owner said he had lost about a quarter of a million dollars in the
> last year, by digging into his retirement and children's college fund. I
> think the only way to keep from losing another quarter million, or going
> bankrupt because I am not sure if he has that much, is to sell the place
> as quickly as possible. He actually seems pretty clueless about how to
> run a restauraunt, and without Robert Irvine there to guide him, will
> just make all the same mistakes again.
>
> Brian Christiansen

I imagine some of these guys get on the right path, but if you are
incompetent and have no basic knowledge of running a restaurant, two days
with Robert Irvine will not get rid of bad habits, lazy employees, etc.
These people would be better off in a different career.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brian" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant Impossible." I believe
>> that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I just did
>> not like. Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the cameras, but
>> I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick, however.
>
> Ramsey does have a US version of Kitch Nightmars. Rest. Imp. is a knock
> off copy.
>
>>
>> Well, anyway, the featured restaurant was called The Snooty Fox, which
>> was supposed to be modeled after an English pub. According to Robert
>> Irvine, the place did not look a thing like an English pub. However,
>> when they went into the kitchen it was just disgusting.
>
>
>> The owner said he had lost about a quarter of a million dollars in the
>> last year, by digging into his retirement and children's college fund. I
>> think the only way to keep from losing another quarter million, or going
>> bankrupt because I am not sure if he has that much, is to sell the place
>> as quickly as possible. He actually seems pretty clueless about how to
>> run a restauraunt, and without Robert Irvine there to guide him, will
>> just make all the same mistakes again.
>>
>> Brian Christiansen
>
> I imagine some of these guys get on the right path, but if you are
> incompetent and have no basic knowledge of running a restaurant, two days
> with Robert Irvine will not get rid of bad habits, lazy employees, etc.
> These people would be better off in a different career.
>
>
I saw that episode. The people had been in business for 29 years so they
aren't exactly "newbies". But it also looked like they hadn't cleaned the
kitchen once since then. Who the hell wants to eat in a place that is that
disgusting? They literally hauled the kitchen appliances outside to the
parking lot to clean them. And to clean behind them. The place was
filthy,

They do go back a few months later to see if the restaurant owners are
following the advice Irvine gives. But I do agree 2 days is hardly enough
time to change a lifetime of habits in the business. They also only have
$10,000 to work with to renovate the restaurant, etc.

Jill

"jmcquown" wrote in message ...


"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brian" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant Impossible." I believe
>> that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I just did
>> not like. Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the cameras, but
>> I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick, however.
>
> Ramsey does have a US version of Kitch Nightmars. Rest. Imp. is a knock
> off copy.
>
>>
>> Well, anyway, the featured restaurant was called The Snooty Fox, which
>> was supposed to be modeled after an English pub. According to Robert
>> Irvine, the place did not look a thing like an English pub. However,
>> when they went into the kitchen it was just disgusting.
>
>
>> The owner said he had lost about a quarter of a million dollars in the
>> last year, by digging into his retirement and children's college fund. I
>> think the only way to keep from losing another quarter million, or going
>> bankrupt because I am not sure if he has that much, is to sell the place
>> as quickly as possible. He actually seems pretty clueless about how to
>> run a restauraunt, and without Robert Irvine there to guide him, will
>> just make all the same mistakes again.
>>
>> Brian Christiansen
>
> I imagine some of these guys get on the right path, but if you are
> incompetent and have no basic knowledge of running a restaurant, two days
> with Robert Irvine will not get rid of bad habits, lazy employees, etc.
> These people would be better off in a different career.
>
>
I saw that episode. The people had been in business for 29 years so they
aren't exactly "newbies". But it also looked like they hadn't cleaned the
kitchen once since then. Who the hell wants to eat in a place that is that
disgusting? They literally hauled the kitchen appliances outside to the
parking lot to clean them. And to clean behind them. The place was
filthy,

They do go back a few months later to see if the restaurant owners are
following the advice Irvine gives. But I do agree 2 days is hardly enough
time to change a lifetime of habits in the business. They also only have
$10,000 to work with to renovate the restaurant, etc.

Jill

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I notice that these shows that only have a limited amount to work with
($10,000 to renovate a restaurant, $1,000 to redo a house to make it
"salable," etc.) never seem to count the cost of labor, and they always
manage to find incredible "deals" for a lot of the items they use. Most of
us would not have a chance in the world of doing the same thing with the
same amount of money.

I saw the episode last night. I have seen several episodes in this series,
and that kitchen was absolutely most disgusting I have ever seen. In
addition to the question raised by the OP, I wonder where the health
inspectors in that area have been. The local TV station where I live runs a
weekly show where they show demerits for restaurants checked that week
(checked on a rotating basis). Restaurants will be given demerits for
things like dented cans, food prep items stored on the floor, etc.

MaryL

>
> Ramsey does have a US version of Kitch Nightmars. Rest. Imp. is a knock off
> copy.

....and much better, in my view. Ramsey is just too confrontational and his vocabulary is very limited. There are usually more "bleeps" than words in his programs. Irvine has an occasional bleep, but they are few and far between, and he is tough without trying to destroy people.

>
> I imagine some of these guys get on the right path, but if you are
> incompetent and have no basic knowledge of running a restaurant, two days
> with Robert Irvine will not get rid of bad habits, lazy employees, etc.
> These people would be better off in a different career.

....absolutely true about this week's adventure - "Rascals."

N.

"Brian" > wrote in message
...
> The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant Impossible." I believe
> that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I just did
> not like. Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the cameras, but
> I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick, however.
>
> Well, anyway, the featured restaurant was called The Snooty Fox, which
> was supposed to be modeled after an English pub. According to Robert
> Irvine, the place did not look a thing like an English pub. However,
> when they went into the kitchen it was just disgusting.
>
> I got to wondering exactly whose fault it is that the kitchen was the
> state it was in. I think it is mainly the fault of the owner and the
> head chef to establish and maintain the standards. Even if he does not
> know how a kitchen should be kept, it is his duty to learn.
>
> The kitchen crew might actually do the cleaning, but it is still the
> responsibility of the owner and head chef to enforce those standards.
> Also I think if he cannot afford the help to keep the kitchen clean, he
> needs to grab a washcloth and a broom and a mop and do it himself, after
> all, it is his business.
>
> If the head chef did not know how to maintain the cleanliness of a
> professional, he should be fired for that. If the head chef knew this
> and was just lazy, he should be fired for that. In fact, he quit the day
> before Irvine showed up, I think in part so he would not be chewed out on
> national TV for letting the kitchen get in the shape it was.
>
> The owner said he had lost about a quarter of a million dollars in the
> last year, by digging into his retirement and children's college fund. I
> think the only way to keep from losing another quarter million, or going
> bankrupt because I am not sure if he has that much, is to sell the place
> as quickly as possible. He actually seems pretty clueless about how to
> run a restauraunt, and without Robert Irvine there to guide him, will
> just make all the same mistakes again.
>

I have seen several episodes of Kitchen Nightmares, and they are always the
same. One element is that the kitchen and refers are filthy and disgusting.
They cannot do a show without that element, it seems.

"Pico Rico" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Brian" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant Impossible." I believe
>> that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I just did
>> not like. Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the cameras, but
>> I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick, however.
>>
>> Well, anyway, the featured restaurant was called The Snooty Fox, which
>> was supposed to be modeled after an English pub. According to Robert
>> Irvine, the place did not look a thing like an English pub. However,
>> when they went into the kitchen it was just disgusting.
>> (snippage)
>> I got to wondering exactly whose fault it is
>>
(more snippage)
>
> I have seen several episodes of Kitchen Nightmares, and they are always
> the same. One element is that the kitchen and refers are filthy and
> disgusting. They cannot do a show without that element, it seems.
If there wasn't something that needed "fixing", the shows (both Kitchen
Nightmares and Restaurant Impossible) wouldn't be very interesting. It's
one thing to simply have a failing restaurant. That's no surprise;
restaurants fail all the time. Wouldn't be very entertaining if that's all
there was to it.

Jill

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:00:58 -0400, "jmcquown" >
wrote:

>
>"Pico Rico" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Brian" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant Impossible." I believe
>>> that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I just did
>>> not like. Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the cameras, but
>>> I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick, however.
>>>
>>> Well, anyway, the featured restaurant was called The Snooty Fox, which
>>> was supposed to be modeled after an English pub. According to Robert
>>> Irvine, the place did not look a thing like an English pub. However,
>>> when they went into the kitchen it was just disgusting.
>>> (snippage)
>>> I got to wondering exactly whose fault it is
>>>
>(more snippage)
>>
>> I have seen several episodes of Kitchen Nightmares, and they are always
>> the same. One element is that the kitchen and refers are filthy and
>> disgusting. They cannot do a show without that element, it seems.

Well, truth is that most all restaurant kitchens are filthy, most
especially the ethnic ones... how they clean one would think they're
blind... the blind are notoriously filthy. I'd much rather dine at an
eatery filled with seeing eye dogs than the blind people, the dogs at
least get professionally groomed.

>If there wasn't something that needed "fixing", the shows (both Kitchen
>Nightmares and Restaurant Impossible) wouldn't be very interesting. It's
>one thing to simply have a failing restaurant. That's no surprise;
>restaurants fail all the time. Wouldn't be very entertaining if that's all
>there was to it.
>
>Jill

"Brian" > wrote in message
...
> The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant Impossible." I believe
> that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I just did
> not like. Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the cameras, but
> I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick, however.

No. We have Kitchen Nightmares here. Restaurant Impossible is a different
show. And it's not Gordon Ramsey. It's Robert Irvine. He takes a failing
restaurant and turns it around in 2 days for $10,000.00 or less.
>
> Well, anyway, the featured restaurant was called The Snooty Fox, which
> was supposed to be modeled after an English pub. According to Robert
> Irvine, the place did not look a thing like an English pub. However,
> when they went into the kitchen it was just disgusting.
>
Yes.

> I got to wondering exactly whose fault it is that the kitchen was the
> state it was in. I think it is mainly the fault of the owner and the
> head chef to establish and maintain the standards. Even if he does not
> know how a kitchen should be kept, it is his duty to learn.

Agreed.
>
> The kitchen crew might actually do the cleaning, but it is still the
> responsibility of the owner and head chef to enforce those standards.
> Also I think if he cannot afford the help to keep the kitchen clean, he
> needs to grab a washcloth and a broom and a mop and do it himself, after
> all, it is his business.
>
Yes.

> If the head chef did not know how to maintain the cleanliness of a
> professional, he should be fired for that. If the head chef knew this
> and was just lazy, he should be fired for that. In fact, he quit the day
> before Irvine showed up, I think in part so he would not be chewed out on
> national TV for letting the kitchen get in the shape it was.

Who knows. But I'd say it's a good thing he quit!
>
> The owner said he had lost about a quarter of a million dollars in the
> last year, by digging into his retirement and children's college fund. I
> think the only way to keep from losing another quarter million, or going
> bankrupt because I am not sure if he has that much, is to sell the place
> as quickly as possible. He actually seems pretty clueless about how to
> run a restauraunt, and without Robert Irvine there to guide him, will
> just make all the same mistakes again.

Robert told him what to do. And he has a new chef who knows to keep the
kitchen clean. He may or may not make it.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:31:49 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:

> "Brian" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant Impossible." I
>> believe that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I
>> just did not like. Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the
>> cameras, but I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick,
>> however.
>
> No. We have Kitchen Nightmares here. Restaurant Impossible is a
> different show. And it's not Gordon Ramsey. It's Robert Irvine. He
> takes a failing restaurant and turns it around in 2 days for $10,000.00
> or less.
>>

I think that some clarification is needed here. What I said is not being
interpreted with the meaning I intended it to have.

First there is the show "kitchen nightmares". It may well be shown in
the US, but I believe it is actually produced in Britain. There are not
2 versions of it, one for the US, and one for the UK, (the same "version"
is shown in both places) at least I do not think there are. Kinda like
the show "Two Fat Ladies," it is shown in the US, but is actually made in
England. The episode I saw was on HULU, and I did not like it, so I did
not bother watching more there or trying to find what station it is on in
the US and if I got that station.

As for "Restaurant Impossible," what I mean by "American version" is that
FN's parent company (Viacom I think) saw that kitchen nightmares was
popular in Britain and was gaining popularity in the US, so they decided
to make their own version of a similar show. Like how ICA is the
"American version" of IC-Japan or Three's Company is the American version
of Man About the House or Sanford and Son is the American version of
Steptoe and Son.

I did not mean something along the lines of a single company making
"kitchen Nightmares" for the British audience, then making an "American
version", "Restaurant Impossible", for the American audience. I also did
not get the hosts mixed up. I know perfectly well that Kitchen
Nightmares = Gordon Ramsay and that Restaurant Impossible = Robert Irvine.

Brian Christiansen

"Brian" > ha scritto nel messaggio



> I think that some clarification is needed here. What I said is not being
> > interpreted with the meaning I intended it to have.
>
> First there is the show "kitchen nightmares". It may well be shown in
> the US, but I believe it is actually produced in Britain. There are not
> 2 versions of it, one for the US, and one for the UK, (the same "version"

Nope. This is one of the few US TV shows I've seen. It was American made
in America with American restaurants and people. There are absolutely two
versions.

"Brian" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 22:31:49 -0700, Julie Bove wrote:
>
>> "Brian" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant Impossible." I
>>> believe that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I
>>> just did not like. Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the
>>> cameras, but I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick,
>>> however.
>>
>> No. We have Kitchen Nightmares here. Restaurant Impossible is a
>> different show. And it's not Gordon Ramsey. It's Robert Irvine. He
>> takes a failing restaurant and turns it around in 2 days for $10,000.00
>> or less.
>>>
>
> I think that some clarification is needed here. What I said is not being
> interpreted with the meaning I intended it to have.
>
> First there is the show "kitchen nightmares". It may well be shown in
> the US, but I believe it is actually produced in Britain. There are not
> 2 versions of it, one for the US, and one for the UK, (the same "version"
> is shown in both places) at least I do not think there are. Kinda like
> the show "Two Fat Ladies," it is shown in the US, but is actually made in
> England. The episode I saw was on HULU, and I did not like it, so I did
> not bother watching more there or trying to find what station it is on in
> the US and if I got that station.

I believe there are two versions. The UK one, shown here on BBC America and
the American one shown on some American channel. I don't know which one
because it is not something I watch on a regular basis. But I have seen it.
>
> As for "Restaurant Impossible," what I mean by "American version" is that
> FN's parent company (Viacom I think) saw that kitchen nightmares was
> popular in Britain and was gaining popularity in the US, so they decided
> to make their own version of a similar show. Like how ICA is the
> "American version" of IC-Japan or Three's Company is the American version
> of Man About the House or Sanford and Son is the American version of
> Steptoe and Son.

Could be. But I do think there is a big difference. On Kitchen Nightmares
there always seems to be something really disgusting. Like a dirty kitchen,
bugs, rats, mice, etc. That's not always the case on Restaurant Impossible.
Sometimes it is just a matter of the owner not knowing what they are doing.
Or not changing the menu and decor since the 80's.
>
> I did not mean something along the lines of a single company making
> "kitchen Nightmares" for the British audience, then making an "American
> version", "Restaurant Impossible", for the American audience. I also did
> not get the hosts mixed up. I know perfectly well that Kitchen
> Nightmares = Gordon Ramsay and that Restaurant Impossible = Robert Irvine.

Okay. But I did look it up for you. Here's a link to Kitchen Nightmares.
The one that is aired on FOX here in the US. And they go into mostly
American restaurants.

http://www.fox.com/kitchennightmares/

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 01:36:00 +0000 (UTC), Brian
> wrote:

>The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant Impossible." I believe
>that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I just did
>not like. Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the cameras, but
>I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick, however.
>
>Well, anyway, the featured restaurant was called The Snooty Fox, which
>was supposed to be modeled after an English pub. According to Robert
>Irvine, the place did not look a thing like an English pub. However,
>when they went into the kitchen it was just disgusting.
>
>I got to wondering exactly whose fault it is that the kitchen was the
>state it was in. I think it is mainly the fault of the owner and the
>head chef to establish and maintain the standards. Even if he does not
>know how a kitchen should be kept, it is his duty to learn.
>
>The kitchen crew might actually do the cleaning, but it is still the
>responsibility of the owner and head chef to enforce those standards.
>Also I think if he cannot afford the help to keep the kitchen clean, he
>needs to grab a washcloth and a broom and a mop and do it himself, after
>all, it is his business.
>
>If the head chef did not know how to maintain the cleanliness of a
>professional, he should be fired for that. If the head chef knew this
>and was just lazy, he should be fired for that. In fact, he quit the day
>before Irvine showed up, I think in part so he would not be chewed out on
>national TV for letting the kitchen get in the shape it was.
>
>The owner said he had lost about a quarter of a million dollars in the
>last year, by digging into his retirement and children's college fund. I
>think the only way to keep from losing another quarter million, or going
>bankrupt because I am not sure if he has that much, is to sell the place
>as quickly as possible. He actually seems pretty clueless about how to
>run a restauraunt, and without Robert Irvine there to guide him, will
>just make all the same mistakes again.
>
>Brian Christiansen

What I don't understand is in the US how come these restaurants are
not inspected by the state or county. I don't believe that I have
ever been in a restaurant that did not have a current sanitation
inspection certificate prominently displayed. If I didn't see one I
would probably leave.

In Virginia the information was all on-line. If I wanted to know
about a restaurant, the information was available. Guess I need to
check and see if the reports are available on-line here (NC.) It
would be nice to know if these reports area available in all states.
You could check before you went.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

On 8/10/2011 7:18 AM, The Cook wrote:

> What I don't understand is in the US how come these restaurants are
> not inspected by the state or county. I don't believe that I have
> ever been in a restaurant that did not have a current sanitation
> inspection certificate prominently displayed. If I didn't see one I
> would probably leave.

I don't get it, either. Watching the show, the filth does look
as if it's been there for a long time, the roach infestations
look realistic. Being tv you figure Don't believe everything you
see, but what is up with all these restaurants having such
overwhelmingly disgusting kitchens? Clearly there aren't enough
inspectors to go around in some of these places that they don't
even seem worried about it.

> In Virginia the information was all on-line. If I wanted to know
> about a restaurant, the information was available. Guess I need to
> check and see if the reports are available on-line here (NC.) It
> would be nice to know if these reports area available in all states.
> You could check before you went.

They print the results in the paper here but they don't go into
detail beyond satisfactory/unsatisfactory/satisfactory restored.
I'm not sure I want to know more, says the ostrich.

nancy

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 08:00:56 -0400, Nancy Young <email@replyto> wrote:

>On 8/10/2011 7:18 AM, The Cook wrote:
>
>> What I don't understand is in the US how come these restaurants are
>> not inspected by the state or county. I don't believe that I have
>> ever been in a restaurant that did not have a current sanitation
>> inspection certificate prominently displayed. If I didn't see one I
>> would probably leave.
>
>I don't get it, either. Watching the show, the filth does look
>as if it's been there for a long time, the roach infestations
>look realistic. Being tv you figure Don't believe everything you
>see, but what is up with all these restaurants having such
>overwhelmingly disgusting kitchens? Clearly there aren't enough
>inspectors to go around in some of these places that they don't
>even seem worried about it.
>
>> In Virginia the information was all on-line. If I wanted to know
>> about a restaurant, the information was available. Guess I need to
>> check and see if the reports are available on-line here (NC.) It
>> would be nice to know if these reports area available in all states.
>> You could check before you went.
>
>They print the results in the paper here but they don't go into
>detail beyond satisfactory/unsatisfactory/satisfactory restored.
>I'm not sure I want to know more, says the ostrich.
>
>nancy

I found the information for NC.
http://www.ancbh.org/restaurant-inspection.cfm

Then by county. I just checked a few places that we tend to frequent.
Most were pretty good.
--
Susan N.

"Moral indignation is in most cases two percent moral,
48 percent indignation, and 50 percent envy."
Vittorio De Sica, Italian movie director (1901-1974)

Many of the problems with sanitation laws arise from underfunded mandates - not enough employees to do the rounds on a regular basis. Usually, it takes an active complaint to call down the wrath of the hygiene people. The same holds true for the agricultural inspections, much to our detriment.

N.

On Aug 9, 9:36*pm, Brian > wrote:
> The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant Impossible." *I believe
> that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I just did
> not like. *Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the cameras, but
> I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick, however.
>
> Well, anyway, the featured restaurant was called The Snooty Fox, which
> was supposed to be modeled after an English pub. *According to Robert
> Irvine, the place did not look a thing like an English pub. *However,
> when they went into the kitchen it was just disgusting.
>
> I got to wondering exactly whose fault it is that the kitchen was the
> state it was in. *I think it is mainly the fault of the owner and the
> head chef to establish and maintain the standards. *Even if he does not
> know how a kitchen should be kept, it is his duty to learn. *
>
> The kitchen crew might actually do the cleaning, but it is still the
> responsibility of the owner and head chef to enforce those standards. *
> Also I think if he cannot afford the help to keep the kitchen clean, he
> needs to grab a washcloth and a broom and a mop and do it himself, after
> all, it is his business.
>
> If the head chef did not know how to maintain the cleanliness of a
> professional, he should be fired for that. *If the head chef knew this
> and was just lazy, he should be fired for that. *In fact, he quit the day
> before Irvine showed up, I think in part so he would not be chewed out on
> national TV for letting the kitchen get in the shape it was.
>
> The owner said he had lost about a quarter of a million dollars in the
> last year, by digging into his retirement and children's college fund. *I
> think the only way to keep from losing another quarter million, or going
> bankrupt because I am not sure if he has that much, is to sell the place
> as quickly as possible. *He actually seems pretty clueless about how to
> run a restauraunt, and without Robert Irvine there to guide him, will
> just make all the same mistakes again.
>
> Brian Christiansen

I caught that episode. I thought it was a bit faked - how could a guy
get all that done in two days? Hell, even designing and getting that
new menu printed would take longer, doncha think?

At any rate, I checked out this resto on tripadvisor and reviews were
not too favorable. One said that the restrooms were one degree above
gas station and that surely they weren't tended to in the tv show.

"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 9, 9:36 pm, Brian > wrote:
>> The other day I caught an episode of "Restaurant Impossible." I believe
>> that is the American version of "kitchen nightmares," which I just did
>> not like. Gordon Ramsay might be doing a "schtick" for the cameras, but
>> I still don't like him. I do like Robert Irvine's schtick, however.
>>
>> Well, anyway, the featured restaurant was called The Snooty Fox, which
>> was supposed to be modeled after an English pub. According to Robert
>> Irvine, the place did not look a thing like an English pub. However,
>> when they went into the kitchen it was just disgusting.
>>
>> Brian Christiansen
>
> I caught that episode. I thought it was a bit faked - how could a guy
> get all that done in two days? Hell, even designing and getting that
> new menu printed would take longer, doncha think?
>
Well, it's television. And Irvine brought in two chefs (who worked their
asses off) and they got the place cleaned out with the kitchen staff in two
days. As for the menu, I can design and print one from my computer in about
10 minutes.

Jil