Finding restaurants

In article , Sandman
wrote:

I find it quite eas to find good food anywhere I've been. It's easy
to find all kinds - good, bad, mediocre.

Agreed, except for my visits to America, where good food has been - at
least to me - hard to find. Maybe I've been unusually unlucky, but my
experience is shared with others, so I'm not sure.

you're either unlucky or you don't know how to pick good restaurants.

going to taco bell because you recognize the logo is *not* how to
choose the better places.

My travels to Europe are limited. I've spent time in Greece with
relatives. I've been to London twice. I toured Italy for two
weeks. I had good and bad food in all of the places. I was in a
restaurant in Athens that served what was supposed to be good food
that Americans would like. It was white-glove service and the
service was excellent, but the food was not good at all. Greeks
wouldn't know a good steak if it smacked them in the face. Now the
Italians - they know a good steak. The Florentine steak was
ridiculous, amazingly tender and flavorful. But boy was it
expensive! The pizza in Italy was good but I've had better pizza
here in New York.

I just want to clarify (once again) that I am fully aware of the fact that
bad food can be found anywhere on the planet. My comparison with USA vs.
Europe is based on my experience with the quality of the ingerdients. As
I've said, anyone can make a bad meal out of the most tender meat you can
find. But the problem with most of the places in the states I've been to
hasn't been incompetent chefs, but the use of sub-standard meat and
produce. And even a good chef will have problems making good food out of
that.

the ingredients are as good or bad as anywhere else. the ****tier
restaurants will probably not use the highest quality ingredients but
the better restaurants generally do.

On top of that, way too much food is loaded with sugar, salt and grease,
and my suspicion is that it's there to hide the poor quality meat
underneath.

in the ****ty restaurants, perhaps but not so much in the better places.

One examples seems to be the school restaurants. I'm sure you've
seen the futile mission the english chef Jamie Oliver was on when
trying to change the menu on an American school (a school, where
some students thought french fries was a vegetable).

Technically, they are correct - potatoes are vegetables but they
don't have the nutritional value of a "normal" vegetable.

A potato is only a vegetable in a botanical sense. Nutrionally, they're
carbohydrates, like rice and pasta. Meat and potatoes on a plate wouldn't
be called meat and vegetables by anyone.

Either way, the context was that Jamie asked why they weren't served
vegetables with their meals, and the kid answered that they were, and
indicated the french fries.

typically a meal includes meat or fish, potatoes (mashed, baked or
french fries) *and* a vegetable (peas, corn, carrots, broccoli, etc.)

In article , Sandman
wrote:

Not at all. I like testing different food.
Unfortunately, Americans don't season their food much at all,
especially not in tourist-heavy areas, where most tourists
are Americans.

nospam:
that's because not everyone likes spicy food, so restaurants in
tourist-heavy areas will tend to be bland.

again, you're picking the wrong restaurants.

Sandman:
And, as I've said many times now, picking the "right" restaurant
is pretty hard for a foreigner with limited time to do any
research, which is my point. If you were in downtown Västerås
(where I live) and picked a restaurant at random, you'd be sure
that it has great quality food.

not necessarily.

Incorrect.

proof? oh yea, there is none other than you saying so.

****ty restaurants exist everywhere, even where you live.

Sandman:
That said, it's not certain that *you* may like the food, but the
ingredient quality will be top notch.

not necessarily.

Incorrect.

proof? oh yea, there is none other than you saying so.

some restaurants scrimp on quality ingredients. others don't. learn to
pick the better ones.

i'm sure it's a wonderful place but to claim that every restaurant
is excellent is completely bull****.

Why can't you read? They may be terrible cooks and it may taste like ****,
but the *ingredients* are of very high quality. That's my point. I said
great *quality* food, not necessairly great tasting food. Anyone can botch
up a perfectly good piece of meat.

if it tastes like ****, who cares if the ingredients are top notch.

Sandman:
Yeah, but who's to blame? Me for not knowing, or for the fact that
there are way too many ****ty restaurants around?

you for not knowing or taking the time to pick better restaurants.

Yeah, you keep claiming that, but I've yet to see you tell me what I should
have done. Remember, we're a family returning in the evening from a Disney
Park, we're driving through the orland tourist strip and we're hungry. How
do we find a great restaurant?

i told you what you should and should not have done.

you succumbed to heavy advertising and put convenience ahead of quality
and then bitched about the lack of quality.

it's your own damned fault.

any idiot would know that fast food such as taco bell is going to be
at best, not that great.

Of course, are you claiming I went there thinking it would be great? Haha.

I went there thinking "sure, I'll try it, seems popular, and hey - I do
like taco's". What I didn't know is that the restaurant would force-rape my
tastebuds.

any idiot would have told you that it wasn't going to be particularly
good.

nospam:
you flew all the way to the usa and went to a taco bell??
seriously??? wtf is wrong with you?

taco bell is ****ty fast food. wtf did you expect?

Sandman:
Oh no, don't give me that! ****ty fast food has it's place. Taco
Bell is a LOT worse than ****ty fast food. It was the worst thing
I've put in my mouth in a long time.

there are worse.

Only in America could there be food that is worse than Taco Bell.

nope. there's worse food outside america too.

Sandman:
McDonald's is hitty fast food, and it has its place, and is edible
when in a hurry or for other reasons. Taco Bell is a *punishment*
to the taste buds. Taco Bell was horrible goo that they surely
found lying in the back trash bin from another fast food
restaurant.

taco bell and mcdonalds are equally ****ty. the only difference is
that one is a burger and one is a taco.

McDonald's in Sweden is freaking five-star luxury restaurant to the
Taco Bell we ate at. They are not comparable in any way, shape or fashion.

bull****. they're all fast food which puts convenience far above
quality. the only difference is that one is a taco and the other is a
burger.

Sandman:
And why did we go there? Well, me and my son had been shopping,
and he was hungry. When driving along, I recognized the logo and
thought, why not? I've seen it in movies, and it's apparently a
pretty popular place seeing how there is one in every
intersection pretty much. How bad can it be, really?

that's not how to pick good restaurants.

I wasn't trying to pick a good restaurant at the time. Why can't you read?

then you don't get to complain that you picked a ****ty one.

In article , Sandman
wrote:


Because I have no occasion to ever go to that area, I can't rate
Giordano's. They may or may not serve good pizza, but unless you're
picky about pizza, it wouldn't be too bad. You may be used to a
completely different type of pizza than is served in the US.
Giordano's offers Chicago "deep-dish" style pizza, and I don't like
deep-dish so I wouldn't stop there. Beware of places that offer the
style of any dish found elsewhere. They usually don't do it well.

Correct, I dislike American pizza. And we don't want any junk food, so fast
food, pizza, burgers, all that is off the table.

if you don't want fast food, pizza and burgers, why the hell did you go
to taco bell?



If these were your only choices for a "really good" restaurant, you
needed to expand your area of search.

No, that's the point. That was on our drive home from the park. We dont'
have the time to "search" for a restaurant at that point in time. We're
hungry, let's stop and eat some on the way. Sure, but where?

picking places you see near major tourist attractions and hotels and on
the major roads between them are generally *not* the better places.

you need to widen your search. ever heard of a phone book? the internet?

On 2015-01-22 18:52:44 +0000, Sandman said:

In article 2015012208550095731-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Sandman:
Soon my sister's kids will be old enough to visit the parks, so
we'll probably return, but chances are that we'll go to Disney
Land instead, I hear that the Universal park on that coast is
nicer.

Why do you think food services at Disneyland in Anaheim are going to
be any different to what you would find at Disney World in Florida?

You snipped the question I answered, so there's a bit of confusion here.
Andreas asked why I came back to America if I've had such bad experiences
with the food, and the answer was that I go there for business and because
I have kids that enjoy the Disney (and Universal) parks. As do I, I might
add!

Then I guess you have to find a way to turn a blind eye to the tourist
trap element of any Disney destination.

So I have no reason to expect the food in the LA area to be any better than
in the Orlando area, but I'm not choosing LA over Orlando based on food

So you are going to go to a seedy, and tired Disneyland in Anaheim.

but based on what I said above; I've head the Universal park is bigger (and
better) there. Also, I've been to Disney World three times now, and never
to Disney Land, and that's a good enough reason as well.

Oh! Well! I guess I am just not that enamored of things Disney, and I
don't particularly care how big Universal is, neither one, on either
coast would be my choice for a vacation destination, with or without
kids. Give me the museums & galleries on the Mall in Washington DC
before that.

The tourist traps of the L.A. basin are no more appealing than the
tourist traps of Florida.

I can imagine.

Then why subject your family and yourself to yet another Mickey Mouse ordeal?

Anaheim is a wasteland connected to L.A. by the freeway system.

Much like Disney World is built in the swamp area west of Orlando, right?


I might just be a bit jaded and contemtuous of the area, but I might
prefer swampland.

All concrete and parking lot. DisneyLand is an aging (60 year old) theme
park where the shine has been worn off years ago. As for Universal, that
is a totally different level of commercialism. There are other theme
parks in the area which specialize in thrill rides such as Six Flags
Magic Mountain, but I wouldn't think that would be suitable for very
young kids. https://www.sixflags.com/magicmountain

The son and daughter is 11 and 13 this year, but will be considerably older
when my sister's kids are big enough. It may be unfitting for them though.

Personally I do whatever I can to avoid the L.A. area and I only
travel down there rarely these days to visit a niece in Huntington
Beach, and my one movie star friend. When I visit I try to take in
places which interest me and go beyond the artificiality of Disney.

We love theme parks. We have Liseberg here in Sweden, which is actually
larger than Magic Kingdom (which I actually find strange, it feels
smaller), but don't have as much rides/activites.

Disney World is amazing, and I really like the Universal park which we
visited for the first time last year. The Transformers ride was awesoe.

I guess that is an area in which we differ, I stopped being a Disney
fan when I was about 5 or 6.
....and I never gained a taste for transformers.

snip list of suggestions

Thanks, not sure if there would ever be a time to look into any of that if
we went there, but I appreciate it.

They were just suggestions. I can't imagine anybody taking the trouble
to travel to California and to not visit Yosemite.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2015012211312689549-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

They were just suggestions. I can't imagine anybody taking the trouble
to travel to California and to not visit Yosemite.

california is a big place and to see everything would take far longer
than most people have.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2015012211312689549-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-01-22 18:52:44 +0000, Sandman said:

In article 2015012208550095731-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

Sandman:
Soon my sister's kids will be old enough to visit the parks, so
we'll probably return, but chances are that we'll go to Disney
Land instead, I hear that the Universal park on that coast is
nicer.

Why do you think food services at Disneyland in Anaheim are going to
be any different to what you would find at Disney World in Florida?

You snipped the question I answered, so there's a bit of confusion
here.
Andreas asked why I came back to America if I've had such bad
experiences
with the food, and the answer was that I go there for business and
because
I have kids that enjoy the Disney (and Universal) parks. As do I, I
might
add!

Then I guess you have to find a way to turn a blind eye to the tourist
trap element of any Disney destination.

So I have no reason to expect the food in the LA area to be any
better than
in the Orlando area, but I'm not choosing LA over Orlando based on
food

So you are going to go to a seedy, and tired Disneyland in Anaheim.

but based on what I said above; I've head the Universal park is
bigger (and
better) there. Also, I've been to Disney World three times now, and
never
to Disney Land, and that's a good enough reason as well.

Oh! Well! I guess I am just not that enamored of things Disney, and I
don't particularly care how big Universal is, neither one, on either
coast would be my choice for a vacation destination, with or without
kids. Give me the museums & galleries on the Mall in Washington DC
before that.

The tourist traps of the L.A. basin are no more appealing than the
tourist traps of Florida.

I can imagine.

As a former New Yorker, would you have ever driven from NY to FL? If
so, you no doubt saw "South of the Border" and I can imagine that that
place is as seedy a tourist trap as you will find..

Then why subject your family and yourself to yet another Mickey Mouse
ordeal?

Anaheim is a wasteland connected to L.A. by the freeway system.

Much like Disney World is built in the swamp area west of Orlando,
right?


I might just be a bit jaded and contemtuous of the area, but I might
prefer swampland.

We took our kids there many years ago, it was also the first time my
wife and I had ever been there. The kids enjoyed it, I liked Epcot
Center but now it's a case of "been there, done that" for me.

All concrete and parking lot. DisneyLand is an aging (60 year old)
theme
park where the shine has been worn off years ago. As for Universal,
that
is a totally different level of commercialism. There are other
theme
parks in the area which specialize in thrill rides such as Six Flags
Magic Mountain, but I wouldn't think that would be suitable for very
young kids. https://www.sixflags.com/magicmountain

The son and daughter is 11 and 13 this year, but will be considerably
older
when my sister's kids are big enough. It may be unfitting for them
though.

Personally I do whatever I can to avoid the L.A. area and I only
travel down there rarely these days to visit a niece in Huntington
Beach, and my one movie star friend. When I visit I try to take in
places which interest me and go beyond the artificiality of Disney.

We love theme parks. We have Liseberg here in Sweden, which is
actually
larger than Magic Kingdom (which I actually find strange, it feels
smaller), but don't have as much rides/activites.

Disney World is amazing, and I really like the Universal park which
we
visited for the first time last year. The Transformers ride was
awesoe.

I guess that is an area in which we differ, I stopped being a Disney
fan when I was about 5 or 6.
...and I never gained a taste for transformers.

I'd consider the Universal parks before Disney's. I like the
Transformers too!

snip list of suggestions

Thanks, not sure if there would ever be a time to look into any of
that if
we went there, but I appreciate it.

They were just suggestions. I can't imagine anybody taking the trouble
to travel to California and to not visit Yosemite.

We visited San Diego for a week some years ago, we took some dear
friends Harold and Lilly with us. Harold was one of my best friends and
I am so happy we got to go because he has now passed away. We enjoyed
Balboa Park, the zoo, and the Gas Light District . My wife and I retire
in two years. Then we will take trips to see some of the National
Parks, we've never been to any of them.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 1/22/2015 10:15 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:

snip

I've had hits and misses. I don't complain about the misses because I
feel that's the risk of traveling. I would never consider whining on
as you have done about any aspect of foreign travel. A traveler
should not expect to find things in a foreign country to be the same
as he would at home.

If he did, why travel, except on business.



You claim to have made other visits to the US. Why do you return?



--
PeterN

On 1/22/2015 2:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip


They were just suggestions. I can't imagine anybody taking the trouble
to travel to California and to not visit Yosemite.


Not imagination, reality.
We have had two vacations in CA. On one we stayed at the Pebble Beach
Lodge, and on the other with the kids we spent a lot of time in SF,
visited Muir Woods and Big Sur. Then drove down to LA and San Diego. I
really would like to go to Ypsimite and the other Western Parks. When I
went on business time was a limiting factor.


--
PeterN

On 2015-01-22 19:39:45 +0000, nospam said:

In article 2015012211312689549-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

They were just suggestions. I can't imagine anybody taking the trouble
to travel to California and to not visit Yosemite.

california is a big place and to see everything would take far longer
than most people have.

What is he going to do, spend 2 weeks in Anaheim hunting down decent
places to eat?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2015-01-22 19:48:52 +0000, "PAS" said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2015012211312689549-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-01-22 18:52:44 +0000, Sandman said:

In article 2015012208550095731-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

Sandman:
Soon my sister's kids will be old enough to visit the parks, so
we'll probably return, but chances are that we'll go to Disney
Land instead, I hear that the Universal park on that coast is
nicer.

Why do you think food services at Disneyland in Anaheim are going to
be any different to what you would find at Disney World in Florida?

You snipped the question I answered, so there's a bit of confusion here.
Andreas asked why I came back to America if I've had such bad experiences
with the food, and the answer was that I go there for business and because
I have kids that enjoy the Disney (and Universal) parks. As do I, I might
add!

Then I guess you have to find a way to turn a blind eye to the tourist
trap element of any Disney destination.

So I have no reason to expect the food in the LA area to be any better than
in the Orlando area, but I'm not choosing LA over Orlando based on food

So you are going to go to a seedy, and tired Disneyland in Anaheim.

but based on what I said above; I've head the Universal park is bigger (and
better) there. Also, I've been to Disney World three times now, and never
to Disney Land, and that's a good enough reason as well.

Oh! Well! I guess I am just not that enamored of things Disney, and I
don't particularly care how big Universal is, neither one, on either
coast would be my choice for a vacation destination, with or without
kids. Give me the museums & galleries on the Mall in Washington DC
before that.

The tourist traps of the L.A. basin are no more appealing than the
tourist traps of Florida.

I can imagine.

As a former New Yorker, would you have ever driven from NY to FL? If
so, you no doubt saw "South of the Border" and I can imagine that that
place is as seedy a tourist trap as you will find..

In February 1974 two of us from Syracuse did just that, but not to go
to a Disney destination. We visited some college friends in Melbourne.
I managed to get the worst Sunburn I have ever experienced at
India-Atlantic Beach. We then moved on to New Orleans and spent 2
nights at a sleazy hotel on Canal Street.

I have taken other drives on different occasions from UpState NY down
South to Asheville, NC, Charlotte, NC, Chattanooga, TN, LaFayette, GA,
also West out to Columbia MO, and all sorts of other exploration.

I have eaten in good places and some pretty questionable places, and I
can say that I don't have any fondness for Florida. Flat just doesn't
work for me, I enjoy hills & mountains, it must be part of my hillbilly
heritage.

Then why subject your family and yourself to yet another Mickey Mouse ordeal?

Anaheim is a wasteland connected to L.A. by the freeway system.

Much like Disney World is built in the swamp area west of Orlando, right?


I might just be a bit jaded and contemtuous of the area, but I might
prefer swampland.

We took our kids there many years ago, it was also the first time my
wife and I had ever been there. The kids enjoyed it, I liked Epcot
Center but now it's a case of "been there, done that" for me.

Yup! I had to take some visitors to Disneyland and I too can say "been
there, done that". However, I have made repeat trips to Yosemite,
Sequoia, Tahoe, Big Sur and I will continue to do so.

All concrete and parking lot. DisneyLand is an aging (60 year old) theme
park where the shine has been worn off years ago. As for Universal, that
is a totally different level of commercialism. There are other theme
parks in the area which specialize in thrill rides such as Six Flags
Magic Mountain, but I wouldn't think that would be suitable for very
young kids. https://www.sixflags.com/magicmountain

The son and daughter is 11 and 13 this year, but will be considerably older
when my sister's kids are big enough. It may be unfitting for them though.

Personally I do whatever I can to avoid the L.A. area and I only
travel down there rarely these days to visit a niece in Huntington
Beach, and my one movie star friend. When I visit I try to take in
places which interest me and go beyond the artificiality of Disney.

We love theme parks. We have Liseberg here in Sweden, which is actually
larger than Magic Kingdom (which I actually find strange, it feels
smaller), but don't have as much rides/activites.

Disney World is amazing, and I really like the Universal park which we
visited for the first time last year. The Transformers ride was awesoe.

I guess that is an area in which we differ, I stopped being a Disney
fan when I was about 5 or 6.
...and I never gained a taste for transformers.

I'd consider the Universal parks before Disney's. I like the Transformers too!

My transformer exposure is nonexistent, so I really have no opinion in
that regard.

snip list of suggestions

Thanks, not sure if there would ever be a time to look into any of that if
we went there, but I appreciate it.

They were just suggestions. I can't imagine anybody taking the trouble
to travel to California and to not visit Yosemite.

We visited San Diego for a week some years ago, we took some dear
friends Harold and Lilly with us. Harold was one of my best friends
and I am so happy we got to go because he has now passed away. We
enjoyed Balboa Park, the zoo, and the Gas Light District . My wife and
I retire in two years. Then we will take trips to see some of the
National Parks, we've never been to any of them.

Many are well worth the effort. I have my favorites which include, but
are not limited to Yosemite, Kings Canyon-Sequoia, Zion, Grand Canyon
(North & South Rim), Death Valley, Arches, Crater Lake,Glacier, Glacier
Bay, Great Smoky Mountains, Olympic.
I need to get my butt to Yellowstone and North to Canada and Lake Louise.

--
Regards,

Savageduck