On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:40:03 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Fat Duck is much more exciting, but you have to have an open mind (as
well as mouth and wallet) for 'unusual' flavour combinations. I think it

Didn't it have a norovirus special menu a few months back?

B2003

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:40:03 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message

I have never been tempted by either the Fat Duck or the Hind's Head,
but I have eaten quite a few times at the Waterside Inn. I have
always been enthralled, and never once been disappointed by Michel
Roux, and therefore see no reason to venture elsewhere in Bray. ;-)

The Riverside Inn is faultless, but boringly traditional French.


It's the Waterside Inn, and that's exactly how we like it, with its
three Michelin stars for 25 years. There is nothing remotely boring
about its world class cuisine and service.

I have been going there (and to both incarnations of Le Gavroche in
London) since 1976, as often as funds allow. ;-)

http://www.waterside-inn.co.uk/
http://www.le-gavroche.co.uk/

"Bruce" wrote in message

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:40:03 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message

I have never been tempted by either the Fat Duck or the Hind's Head,
but I have eaten quite a few times at the Waterside Inn. I have
always been enthralled, and never once been disappointed by Michel
Roux, and therefore see no reason to venture elsewhere in Bray. ;-)

The Riverside Inn is faultless, but boringly traditional French.


It's the Waterside Inn, and that's exactly how we like it, with its
three Michelin stars for 25 years. There is nothing remotely boring
about its world class cuisine and service.

I have been going there (and to both incarnations of Le Gavroche in
London) since 1976, as often as funds allow. ;-)

Sorry, yes, I meant Waterside Inn. No excuses!

wrote in message

On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:40:03 +0100
"Recliner" wrote:
Fat Duck is much more exciting, but you have to have an open mind (as
well as mouth and wallet) for 'unusual' flavour combinations. I
think it

Didn't it have a norovirus special menu a few months back?

Problems with sewage-infested oysters:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle6829149.ece

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 07:57:36PM +0100, Paul Terry wrote:
In message , tim....
writes
Wetherspoons food is centrally cooked and supplied to each outlet in
"cooked-chilled" form to be reheated as required.
That is true of most restaurants - either you eat food that has been
hanging around warm for hours, or it is reheated (usually microwaved)
from chilled. Very few people have the time or patience to wait for the
hour or more that it takes to cook most dishes from totally fresh.

It doesn't take anything like an hour to cook most dishes from scratch.

But in any case, there's nothing wrong with having *some* things
pre-prepared so that you can either just heat them up and serve, or do
just the last step or two in preparing them to order.

I'm quite happy for my soup to be prepared in advance, or my prawns to
be cooked in advance and then just have the last few moments of
preparation to order. What I'm *not* happy for is for my steak to be
cooked in advance and then re-heated, like what happens in Wetherspoons.

--
David Cantrell | semi-evolved ape-thing

Erudite is when you make a classical allusion to a
feather. Kinky is when you use the whole chicken.

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:33:08AM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:12:42 +0100, David Cantrell
wrote:
ITYM might as well stay with the east coast main line. London to
Edinburgh by train is *already* faster than going by plane, once you
take into account travel time to/from airports and pointless hanging
around.
You assume everyone is travelling from Central London or Stevenage.

No. I don't live in either Central London or Stevenage, but the train
is still faster (as well as being more comfortable and more reliable).

--
David Cantrell | top google result for "internet beard fetish club"

Longum iter est per praecepta, breve et efficax per exempla.

On Jul 23, 2:39*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

In message
,
at 05:22:21 on Fri, 23 Jul 2010, Mizter T remarked:

London to Edinburgh by train is *already* faster than going by plane,
once you take into account travel time to/from airports and pointless
hanging around.

Even GNER could barely make a case for London-Newcastle being as
fast by train.

What?

GNER did a "race" from London to Newcastle (centre to centre
presumably), and the person who went by train (rather than air)
won, but only just. GNER then said how wonderful the train was,
but I thought it proved the opposite - despite train being my
first choice for such a trip.

OK. I'm a little surprised by that - quickest KX to Newcastle train is
2hrs 44mins, but almost all the others are in the 2hrs 50 to 3hrs 20
time bracket (most being close to 3 hrs).

I can't be bothered to research the alternative timings for flying,
but of course from central London one needs to get to Heathrow (for BA
flights), Gatwick (for Flybe) or Stansted (for easyJet - this route
however is ending on 31 October, so sez wikipedia). From Newcastle
airport it's about a 25 minute Metro journey to the centre of the
City, with trains every 12 minutes.

If the flyer was allowed to use taxis, then they could perhaps have
used a taxi to get into the centre of Newcastle maybe a bit quicker
(traffic dependent of course), and it might've possibly helped in
London, e.g. to get to Paddington, Victoria or Liverpool St for the
respective airport expresses.

The EC intercity service is also very regular - it's basically half-
hourly, which is of course very attractive in and of itself - none of
the airlines will offer a frequency of service anything near that.