Could we come up with a definition of a chain? Oh, we did that.

Could we determine if readers have an interest in the more upscale chains? Oh, we did that.

Could we determine if some big chains are evil and bad corporate citizens? Oh, we did that.

Because its small and locally owned, are our dining experiences are always best? Oh, we did that.

Gee, unless a particular issue changes (Denny or Cracker Barrels stop discriminating) we have pretty much covered the waterfront.

Bravo!
One thing I have learned from this blog is that we have some serious foodies, and then others who read it more for fun than anything. There is room in the sandbox for everyone.
I have more of a plebian taste and pocketbook than I wish. I would like to have a patrician lifestyle, but it didn't happen. That doesn't mean that I can't participate in the blog and feel welcomed.
This really should be a place for patricians and plebians both, and let's make everyone feel welcome!

We can agree to disagree and I'm glad you posted your position so that everyone can decide for themselves the relevance of your critiques.

That said, as a reader and paying subscriber of The Sun, I expect you to be on top of your game. I expect that after decades of reviewing restaurants you'll have insightful insights into food and the restaurants themselves.

I don't want to read fluff pieces about any restaurants, whether they're local or a national chain. I expect serious, insightful reviews that actually capture the essence of their dining experience. The low point for me was the Cinghiale review where you stated perjoratively that their kale soup tasted well, like kale.

For the life of me, I can't imagine how a vegetable soup tasting like the actual vegetable is a negative thing.

I'd like to know more on what you mean by "support" local establishments - are you talking about writing fluff pieces just because they're local? Or writing pieces about them just to help drive customers to them and make them money to survive?

I'm not in favor of either scenario. But I am in favor of you spending our time and money seeking out the local places and alerting us to their existence, and then giving them a tough critique of their experience - good or bad. And if the experience was bad, then I expect you to slam them pretty hard.

No one should get a pass just because they're "local".

Brava, dear leader. Please accept this old fart's thank you for a job well done and hopes for continued acceptance of all bloggers.

In Howard County we have bumper stickers that read:

Howard County
Choose Civility

Can we do any less here?

I suspect this is spurred, in part, by some of the early readers feeling pushed out by the newer posters. Sort of like when a cult band you love hits it big, you're happy for them but also put out by the "bandwagon jumpers." One of the downsides to success, I guess.

Well in light of this "Large Doctrine", I suggest we move the sandbox party to an Arby's.

Mmmmmm, I'm thinking Arby's.

Thanks so much for your "insightful insights" into what a restaurant review should contain, J Cee.

Kudos for establishing the ground rules. I, too, have been dismayed over the [pick one] elitism, snobbery, snarkiness, and/or arrogance exhibited by some participants. Some of the "regulars" seem to think it is their private preserve, seemingly trying to intimidate anyone they deem not up to their standard.

Thank you again for steering the QEB [Queen Elizabeth Blog] back on course.

I think one area of confusion is the difference between Lady E's reviews for the Sun and this blog. Some posters seem to think every word on the blog ought to weigh as much as one in print, but I see the blog as a chance for some fun with food and foodies.

Jay C., check out this discussion, esp. JonParker's comment.

Susan wrote - "I have more of a plebian taste and pocketbook than I wish. I would like to have a patrician lifestyle, but it didn't happen."

For the beginning both plebian and patrician have played nicely in the sandbox. It's only been a few who seem to demand that their views/tastes should be dominant. In so doing, they have seemed to have caused several early participants to suddenly disappear. Although I'm sure this was never the intent, it has been the result.

I came in to D@L from Sam's blog. I've noticed that there is a bit more ire here than in the average blog. I think bra1nchild may have said it best by describing the"snarkiness".

That said, right and wrong are by definition subjective. It's more fruitful to discuss effective and ineffective.

What is effective for a writer, any writer? Know your goal and know your audience. Elizabeth, you have clearly indicated that you know both.

Well said.

Looks like you've been outed, onocoffee/Jay C. LOL

Hey RofCC - The KFC/Taco Bell in Cockeysville recently became an Arby's...I'm in!!!

Thanks Elizabeth...very succinctly put!

I started reading this post at 8am, got distracted by the Chowhound link, completed some bill paying on line and then remembered that my intent had been to say how wonderful I thought it was that you had addressed the recent acrimony that had somehow wormed its way onto this blog. We all have opinions and in the words of my mother, 'you can learn something from even the biggest fool, even if it is just how not to be a fool.' We do not all have to agree on every topic, nor do we have to be interested in every topic. But each day I find something on this blog that causes me to pause and reflect. I truly delight in Dining@Large and hope that others will feel comfortable enough to return to the fold.

Now it's all clear. Somebody has a personal vendetta The restaurant somebody works for got a bad review ;-D

There was a short piece in The Chronicle of Higher Education about a class taught entirely on YouTube. One downside: "One student argued ... that the 500-character limit that YouTube places on user comments has encouraged short, 'often inflammatory comments' to be posted, and has made it impossible to post longer and more thoughtful critiques."

Remember what Marshall McLuhan said about the medium and the message?

An observation from someone who spent decades reading reviews with a critical eye: Read a reviewer for a while, trying some of the items -- restaurants, movies, plays, books -- to establish a bench line. If you disagree with an aspect of a reviewer's work, make suitable adjustments. I learn from many writers I disagree with, especially on the op ed page.
Two personal comments: This is the first (and thus far only) blog I read, not just for EL's posts but for many of the intelligent and entertaining comments. And I unashamedly plug South Baltimore establishments when possible, with balanced comments.

Well, Anonymous, if you're going to butter us all up by calling people in the sandbox "intelligent and entertaining," you'd better choose a different name for yourself and come play! Something with SoBo ... perhaps?

As for your reviews, you gave Abacrombie a great review. We had dinner there last night before the symphony We were the third table in the restaurant. Had trouble finding a wine we knew; their list was not to our liking. Our dinner was very good; the lamb chops and the Drum fish. And then the server committed the EL cardinal sin: left us sitting with dirty plates for 25 minutes! Husband had to tap him on the shoulder to ask for the check. He did not apologize or ask if we wanted coffee or dessert..I told Husband if he gave server 20% tip, I'd sock him.!! I wanted to call Greta today, but my husband is a Pacifist! Beverly

You should always let the manager know. It's the only way he/she can fix things. But I'm sorry things went so badly. EL

I apologize for failing to sign my name to the anonymous comment on reviewing. It was inadvertent.

For those still interested in the topic of writing reviews, two in The Baltimore Sun and The Washington Post today would be illuminating.
The subject is a concert last week by the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra. The reviews by the two music critics take very different but still valid approaches to the concert.
One, by The Sun's Tim Smith, is a straight forward review of the performance. The other, by a Post critic I'm not familiar with, primarily discusses the programming decisions instead.
Partly because I am familiar with Smith's taste in music, I preferred his approach. But the other one might have been more suitable for readers of The Post's Style section. To each his own.
Here are the two reviews:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/music/bal-to.musicol28apr28,0,1862993.column

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/27/AR2008042702285.html

I apologize for the earlier "anonymous" posting, which was inadvertent.

As long as you are being positive, FH Jim, I don't think anyone minds--it's the anonymous venom-dripper that tends to ruffle feathers.