Thread: Bubba Gumps
View Single Post
Old 12-03-2007, 08:59 AM   #87
LSPoorEeyorick
scribblin'
 
LSPoorEeyorick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: in the moment
Posts: 3,872
LSPoorEeyorick is the epitome of coolLSPoorEeyorick is the epitome of coolLSPoorEeyorick is the epitome of coolLSPoorEeyorick is the epitome of coolLSPoorEeyorick is the epitome of coolLSPoorEeyorick is the epitome of coolLSPoorEeyorick is the epitome of coolLSPoorEeyorick is the epitome of coolLSPoorEeyorick is the epitome of coolLSPoorEeyorick is the epitome of coolLSPoorEeyorick is the epitome of cool
I remember that, back when I lived in a small town, we really enjoyed the food at the Cheesecake Factory, and did wait in line in Chicago to eat there, because there were no others in our vicinity.

I don't think it's a stupid idea to eat somewhere you trust - but I do think that when you eat at a chain restaurant while you're traveling, it speaks to your sense of culinary adventure. Me? I wouldn't choose to eat at a restaurant I could access at home if it meant I was missing out on a new culinary experience. This is probably due to many factors, including:

1) I like to try new foods, new ethnic genres, new flavors, and new takes on dishes I enjoy.

2) I looooove researching restaurants, through Yelp.com or travel books. I can almost always pick something that we'll enjoy, so it reduces the potential for adventure-turned-food-poisoning. It also increases the chances of finding the true hole-in-the-wall that would be otherwise hidden.

3) I don't have any picky eaters or picky children in my party. (Vegan, yes, but we can do plenty of exploring despite that.)

If any of that weren't so - if I (like MouseWife) weren't fond of tentacles, or had people in my party who preferred a consistent (mid-) level of quality as opposed to a possible adventure (with possible bad meal, or possible terrific meal) I probably would, too. But I love the adventure of it, so it isn't the case.
LSPoorEeyorick is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote