Jerry DeAngelis wrote:

> You are totally off base here. You cannot read, or choose not to, as
> I have posted a number of references that contradict your assertion of
> what Carpaccio is, or should be.

Jerry, you posted two references, both of which I dealt
with, and took it further to full explanation of why I made
the assertions. You've just repeated your initial notion
that because you did it, it was right. Carpaccio should be
red meat on a plate - to echo the color palette of the
painter Carpaccio, as originally construed at Harry's Bar.
That others misuse, misconstrue or simply want to sound more
swell and nifty by using it to mean that which it doesn't,
merely demonstrates that while 100 is the average IQ, it
isn't necessarily sufficient.

> I stand by the Zucchini Carpaccio,
> as do the references I provided. You seem to think because you write
> articles, you wear the white robe of a Pope. You don't, and your
> diatribe suggests you never will.

Jerry, I'm a chef with more than 30 years experience, with
European and American training, and ownership of many, and
operation of many more restaurants. I'm a member of several
professional organizations involved with foodservice. I also
have a degree in English and have written more than 1500
articles which have been published in places like the
NYTimes and LATimes syndicates as well as many other
magazines and newspapers, even an encyclopedia. I've been
doing a call-in radio program for nearly 20 years about food
and cooking. I'm not the pope and I don't play him on tv.
But I surely do have a lengthy professional background in
this field. And while I may not be the smartest kitchen
hand, the - literally - thousands of books in my library,
all of which I've read and used, would seem to comprise a
reasonably exhaustive source bank. I ain't the pope, but I
also ain't a rookie.

I don't think I'm going to defer to your literary criticism,
given your own writing, although "diatribe" was a nice touch.

> It is nice to see that you are familiar with foams and deconstructed
> foods. I too have written about them, but have no need to impress
> anyone here. In short, I find them silly and of limited value in the
> real world inhabited by most people.

<LOL> Of course. That's why you brought them up to try to
seem more widely knowledgeable than you are. And assumed
that others - probably me - aren't as versed as you are. But
I somewhat agree with your assessment of foams. They do have
a real, if limited, place in culinaria, as foie gras,
caviar, balut, Velveeta, durian and Miracle Whip do. The
table is nothing if not democratic. If the "real world as
inhabited by most people" were to be the sole criterion for
value, there would be no great music, architecture, art or
literature. Or cuisine. Perhaps try to aspire higher.

> When you have 1.3 million visitors a year to your website - from all
> parts of the world - you can crow a bit. If indeed you have web site
> please, provide the URL so that we can visit it, and be enlightened.

I don't have a web site up. That total of visitors is a
large number. I note that you've just bragged about your web
site, but above you say you "have no need to impress anyone
here." Perhaps a tiny contradiction.

Pastorio