Italy Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> http://www.phantomgourmet.com/ > "Great 8" "Sushi"
>
>
>
> http://www.phantomgourmet.com/showpage.aspx?
>
> content=GreatAteDetails&GreatAteId=43
>
>
>
> Pretty dull and uninformative reviews ... unless you want
> to know in which places the waitresses wear kimono.

yeah, I'm not all that impressed with these reviews.
Not much in the way of good sushi is mentioned, execpt the
omakase at the Fug.

--
Dan

Italy Anonymous Remailer wrote:
> http://www.phantomgourmet.com/ > "Great 8" "Sushi"
>
>
>
> http://www.phantomgourmet.com/showpage.aspx?
>
> content=GreatAteDetails&GreatAteId=43
>
>
>
> Pretty dull and uninformative reviews ... unless you want
>
> to know in which places the waitresses wear kimono.
>
>
>
>
>
Fresh fish on the boats at Fugakyu? I haven't been there in a few
months but it was always well sculpted faux fish before. How closely
did the reviewer look?

Jessica

Jessica V. wrote:

> Italy Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>
>> http://www.phantomgourmet.com/ > "Great 8" "Sushi"
>>
> Fresh fish on the boats at Fugakyu? I haven't been there in a few
> months but it was always well sculpted faux fish before. How closely
> did the reviewer look?

They have toted the kaiten sushi for a while, but I have never seen it
running. I've only been twice, thought the place was over priced and
poorly staffed.

Seems like Phantom was just hitting the "hot" spots, not necessarily the
good spots.

--
Dan

A Tue, 4 Jan 2005 16:31:13 +0100 (CET), Anonymous
> escribió:
> I would not be surprised if there were kickbacks,
> payola or other FCC violations to get "reviewed" by them.

I would. I wouldn't be surprised, though, that you're
saying so because the Phantom Gourmet panned a restaurant
you liked. So petty.


--
bicker®

A Thu, 6 Jan 2005 22:51:53 +0100 (CET), Anonymous
> escribió:
> If there was
> something negative about any restaurant, I missed it. (I did NOT read
> the whole site.)

San Francisco Kitchen, a sushi restaurant in Nashua, rated
68, while Fugakya, a sushi restaurant in Brookline, rated
85. If you cannot tell the difference between 68 and 85, I
cannot help you.


--
bicker®

NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

>> If there was something negative about any restaurant, I missed it.
>> (I did NOT read the whole site.)
>
>San Francisco Kitchen, a sushi restaurant in Nashua, rated
>68, while Fugakya, a sushi restaurant in Brookline, rated
>85. If you cannot tell the difference between 68 and 85, I
>cannot help you.

Nashua? That's NH. I've never even been to Nashua. Never been to
Fugakyu, either.

Here's the Fugakyu "review": "Fugakyu is a beautiful Japanese restaurant run

by kimono-dressed waitresses. An oval sushi bar circulates floating boats

of freshly cut fish, while the dining room is a maze of hidden tatami rooms,

closed off by sliding rice paper doors. Lively fish tanks show off future

dinners of mackerel, sea urchin, lobster, and abalone. The $65 omakase,
or chef’s choice full course meal, is an incredible feast that includes an

appetizer, sushi, makimono, sashimi, soup, and salad."

The only useful descriptor in there is "freshly cut" and I don't even know
what THAT'S supposed to mean. The itamae sliced the fish just before
putting it on the rice? Wow!! A sushi bar where they actually cut the fish
right there instead of buying hundreds of tiny pieces of pre-sliced fish!
Does it mean that they asked about the source of the fish (a chunk freshly

cut from a freshly delievered fish?)?

I prefer critical reviews of the food, not a junior high school essay on
"Dining Out" using as many adjectives from an assigned list as possible.
(beautiful, oval, floating, incredible ...).

I was reading thru the VERBAL descriptions and didn't even see any
number ratings. It just looks like most VERBAL reviews are written "Mad
Libs" style, plugging in kind words from a restaurant review glossary.
Where they do opine, "We really liked the xxx" there are rarely reasons
given other than it was "tasty" or "delicious". "Tasty" sushi? Yeah, I
could go for some of that!

I did some Cuisine searches and didn't see "Jacob Wirth" under the German
restaurants. Does Jacob Wirth's still exist (used to be downtown near Tufts
Medical Center / theater district)? What about "Cafe Budapest", a Hungarian

place in a hotel near the Main Branch of the Boston Public Library; is that
still there? (Not that Phantom Gourmet has to review EVERY restaurant,
I'm just wondering if those two famous ones are still there or if they've
gone the way of the dodo bird.)

NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

>> If there was something negative about any restaurant, I missed it.
>> (I did NOT read the whole site.)
>
>San Francisco Kitchen, a sushi restaurant in Nashua, rated
>68, while Fugakya, a sushi restaurant in Brookline, rated
>85. If you cannot tell the difference between 68 and 85, I
>cannot help you.

Nashua? That's NH. I've never even been to Nashua. Never been to
Fugakyu, either.

Here's the Fugakyu "review": "Fugakyu is a beautiful Japanese restaurant run

by kimono-dressed waitresses. An oval sushi bar circulates floating boats

of freshly cut fish, while the dining room is a maze of hidden tatami rooms,

closed off by sliding rice paper doors. Lively fish tanks show off future

dinners of mackerel, sea urchin, lobster, and abalone. The $65 omakase,
or chef’s choice full course meal, is an incredible feast that includes an

appetizer, sushi, makimono, sashimi, soup, and salad."

The only useful descriptor in there is "freshly cut" and I don't even know
what THAT'S supposed to mean. The itamae sliced the fish just before
putting it on the rice? Wow!! A sushi bar where they actually cut the fish
right there instead of buying hundreds of tiny pieces of pre-sliced fish!
Does it mean that they asked about the source of the fish (a chunk freshly

cut from a freshly delievered fish?)?

I prefer critical reviews of the food, not a junior high school essay on
"Dining Out" using as many adjectives from an assigned list as possible.
(beautiful, oval, floating, incredible ...).

I was reading thru the VERBAL descriptions and didn't even see any
number ratings. It just looks like most VERBAL reviews are written "Mad
Libs" style, plugging in kind words from a restaurant review glossary.
Where they do opine, "We really liked the xxx" there are rarely reasons
given other than it was "tasty" or "delicious". "Tasty" sushi? Yeah, I
could go for some of that!

I did some Cuisine searches and didn't see "Jacob Wirth" under the German
restaurants. Does Jacob Wirth's still exist (used to be downtown near Tufts
Medical Center / theater district)? What about "Cafe Budapest", a Hungarian

place in a hotel near the Main Branch of the Boston Public Library; is that
still there? (Not that Phantom Gourmet has to review EVERY restaurant,
I'm just wondering if those two famous ones are still there or if they've
gone the way of the dodo bird.)

A Fri, 7 Jan 2005 12:14:29 -0800 (PST), "A.Melon"
> escribió:
> >> If there was something negative about any restaurant, I missed it.
> >> (I did NOT read the whole site.)
> >San Francisco Kitchen, a sushi restaurant in Nashua, rated
> >68, while Fugakya, a sushi restaurant in Brookline, rated
> >85. If you cannot tell the difference between 68 and 85, I
> >cannot help you.
> Nashua? That's NH. I've never even been to Nashua. Never been to
> Fugakyu, either.

I don't see how your personal experience bears on the issue
of whether or not the Phantom Gourmet applies a
discriminating evaluation ethic. Perhaps what you meant to
say earlier is that the Phantom Gourmet hasn't been critical
any restaurant that you personally are concerned about.
That's a far cry from what you asserted, though.

> I prefer critical reviews of the food

Then you don't like his writing style. That doesn't provide
any foundation for the *accusation* you made that the
Phantom Gourmet was beholden to the restaurants he reviews.
Your accusation was irresponsible.


--
bicker®

NOTE: This message was sent thru a mail2news gateway.
No effort was made to verify the identity of the sender.
--------------------------------------------------------

> I don't see how your personal experience bears on the issue

You accused me of having a personal agenda because they panned my
favorite restaurant. I don't have any favorite restaurants in Boston or anywhere.

I haven't eaten in Boston in YEARS. YOU mentioned SF Kitchen and Fagakyu.

That's why I said, (1) never been there (2) I have no personal (restaurant

related) agenda.

> Perhaps what you meant to
> say earlier is that the Phantom Gourmet hasn't been critical
> any restaurant that you personally are concerned about.

I don't have "any restaurant that [i] personally [am] concerned about."
I do find their written reviews to be extremely shallow (and I have now
read many more). THAT'S my agenda.

> Then you don't like his writing style. That doesn't provide
> any foundation for the *accusation* you made that the
> Phantom Gourmet was beholden to the restaurants he reviews.
> Your accusation was irresponsible.

I did not accuse (straight out, as you imply). I said, "It looks like the

entire site should be marked "Paid Advertisement" because I don't see
anything close to a serious food review there. ... I would not be surprised

if there were kickbacks, payola or other FCC violations to get "reviewed"
by them." (referring to the TV show version, assuming it uses the same
or similar content).

"I would not be surprised if [...]" is a way of emphasizing how uniformly
positive and non-critical the reviews [that I read] were. Think of it as a

metaphor that I use to characterize the 'friendliness' of the site to all the

restaurants that are reviewed. (Just like the radio stations were only
"friendly" to some artists and labels.)

OK. This is a sushi group. You can yell at me again, but if there's nothing
for follow-up about sushi, I won't reply and you can win. Obviously, MY
opinion of phantomgourmet.com doesn't matter and they can win, too.

I prefer critical reviews of the food, not a junior high school essay
on
"Dining Out" using as many adjectives from an assigned list as
possible.
(beautiful, oval, floating, incredible ...)....



___________________



Yep, there's a lot of that junk knocking around, infomercials, as you
said - swell reviews for whatever's buying ads in the magazine!



ww

A 8 Jan 2005 07:09:18 -0000, Anonymous
> escribió:
> > I don't see how your personal experience bears on the issue
> You accused me of having a personal agenda

Actually, I asserted that what you were trying to say about
Phantom Gourmet was irresponsible and without merit.

> YOU mentioned SF Kitchen and Fagakyu.

Yes, I did; and did so as an example showing the lack of
merit in your original, irresponsible accusation that the
Phantom Gourmet website was a:

> "Paid Advertisement"

.... and your further baseless presumption that:

> I would not be surprised if there were kickbacks,
> payola or other FCC violations to get "reviewed" by them.

Or did you forget what you wrote earlier?

> I do find their written reviews to be extremely shallow

A statement which you tried to make sound more important
than it really was, and in doing so made the irresponsible
accusation and presumption I quoted above.

> > Your accusation was irresponsible.
> I did not accuse (straight out, as you imply).

Even you clearly recognize you made an accusation, so much
so that you felt the need to add the parenthetical
statement.

It would have taken you less time to admit you were
irresponsible and move on. What difference does it make to
you? If you really cared about people taking you seriously,
you wouldn't be using a remailer.

> This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Indeed.


--
bicker®

A Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:48:42 -0800 (PST), A.Melon
> escribió:
> I hope the FCC or some
> investigative reporter starts an investigation based on a
> usenet post to settle the matter.

I hope you catch a clue someday.


--
bicker®

"*bicker*" > wrote in message
...
>A Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:48:42 -0800 (PST), A.Melon
> > escribió:
>> I hope the FCC or some
>> investigative reporter starts an investigation based on a
>> usenet post to settle the matter.
>
> I hope you catch a clue someday.
>
>
> --
> bicker®

I may be new to this newsgroup, but it's an easy bet from where you got
your pseudonim.
OH

"*bicker*" > wrote in message
...
>A Tue, 11 Jan 2005 22:48:42 -0800 (PST), A.Melon
> > escribió:
>> I hope the FCC or some
>> investigative reporter starts an investigation based on a
>> usenet post to settle the matter.
>
> I hope you catch a clue someday.
>
>
> --
> bicker®

I may be new to this newsgroup, but it's an easy bet from where you got
your pseudonim.
OH

A Fri, 14 Jan 2005 16:18:48 GMT, "Olde Hippee"
> escribió:
> I may be new to this newsgroup, but it's an easy bet from where you got
> your pseudonim.

p s e u d o n y m



--
bicker®