Gourmet plating
October 4, 2015 4:46 PM   Subscribe

60 Second Tasting Menu. Now that Eater is part of a $850M media org, they have rebundled their site's video offerings.
posted by growabrain (50 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
(So ok, today I learned that Cake Martini is a thing. I'm not sure I needed to know that.)
posted by effbot at 5:12 PM on October 4, 2015 [3 favorites]


I would hope the menu comes with eating instructions. Most of those dishes make no sense.
posted by kafziel at 5:36 PM on October 4, 2015


The servers instruct guests on how to eat dishes, where appropriate--sometimes figuring out for yourself, or just diving right in, is part of the point.

All of those dishes look amazing. I'd like to see the 2-hour version of this, with recipes etc.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 5:54 PM on October 4, 2015 [2 favorites]


Serious question: how do I reconcile this kind of cooking with people going hungry all over the world and in my own neighborhood.
posted by STFUDonnie at 6:01 PM on October 4, 2015 [2 favorites]


Same way you reconcile hundred dollar sporting or concert tickets, expensive movies, vacations, and Starbucks. Also art galleries, museums, theatre.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:21 PM on October 4, 2015 [23 favorites]


The servers instruct guests on how to eat dishes, where appropriate--sometimes figuring out for yourself, or just diving right in, is part of the point.

"Hmm. By volume, this dish is 98% pine needles, 2% weird friend noodle thing. I'm gonna start with the needles."
posted by kafziel at 6:21 PM on October 4, 2015 [3 favorites]


Serious question: how do I reconcile this kind of cooking with people going hungry all over the world and in my own neighborhood.

A rich man opens the paper one day, he sees the world is full of misery. He says, “I have money, I can help.” So he gives away all of his money. But it’s not enough. The people are still suffering. One day the man sees another article, he decides he was foolish to think just giving money was enough. So he goes to the doctor and says, “Doctor, i want to donate a kidney.” The doctors do the surgery, it’s a complete success. After, he knows he should feel good, but he doesn’t, for people are still suffering. So he goes back to the doctor. He says, “Doctor, this time I want to give it all.”
The doctor says, “What does that mean, give it all?” He says, “This time I want to donate my liver, but not just my liver. I want to donate my heart, but not just my heart. I want to donate my corneas, but not just my corneas. I want to give it all away. Everything I am, all that I have.”The doctor says, “A kidney is one thing but you can’t give away your whole body piece by piece, that’s suicide.” And he sends the man home.
But the man cannot live knowing that people are suffering and he could help. So he gives the one thing he has left, his life.

-Does it work? He stopped the suffering?
-You live in a world, what do you think?
-So.. he killed himself for nothing?
-Did he?
-Well, I mean… you're saying… argh, what are you saying?
-Only a fool thinks he can solve the world’s problems.
-Yeah, but you've got to try, don't you?
posted by durandal at 6:42 PM on October 4, 2015 [6 favorites]


Yeah but to me, making this kind of food seems like the exact opposite of trying to save the world. More like burying your head in the sand.
posted by STFUDonnie at 6:55 PM on October 4, 2015


It's an artform that happens to be edible.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 6:58 PM on October 4, 2015 [6 favorites]


...by those who can afford it. The rest of us should count ourselves lucky to watch these little videos and use our imaginations, huh? Sorry I'm not trying to be combattive, I'm honestly trying to figure out if my feelings on this topic are valid.
posted by STFUDonnie at 7:07 PM on October 4, 2015


There are very serious people who have these conversations in every field, not just the arts, but there's a time and a place. You can't reasonably expect the issues you raise to be settled here and now, and by asking art to justify its basic existence, you run the risk of stifling any other discussion that may be had.
posted by teponaztli at 7:22 PM on October 4, 2015 [17 favorites]


Yeah fair enough. Sorry
posted by STFUDonnie at 7:24 PM on October 4, 2015 [1 favorite]


Yeah, hush up and be marketed to in silence.
posted by kafziel at 7:25 PM on October 4, 2015 [2 favorites]


That's a very uncharitable reading of what I said.
posted by teponaztli at 7:25 PM on October 4, 2015 [17 favorites]


...by those who can afford it. The rest of us should count ourselves lucky to watch these little videos and use our imaginations, huh?

Sure these meals are expensive (a 12 course at Alinea is $210, but seeing U2 at MSG was $189 to get in, never mind the upper end/scalper prices) but

1) this money goes to farmers/other ingredient suppliers and the army of line chefs it takes to put something like this together

2) there are people (particularly people literally going hungry) who still couldn't afford it even if it cost as much as a movie theatre ticket

Like, yeah sure, celebrity chef who helms the restaurant may get a big cut off the top, but line chefs are not exactly overpaid: "At Alinea, the starting salary for a line cook is $24,000 with benefits" (from 2006, mind you, but still).
posted by juv3nal at 7:29 PM on October 4, 2015 [7 favorites]


I feel like we could talk about this contentious issue of how somehow food experiences occupy a different space with regards to a felt sense of justice than does shelter, entertainment, transportation, clothing or any other domain in which excess and excellence go unremarked as something that occurs along a wealth-poverty continuum and offers interest and value at every level therein, but I also think it's awesome that all these videos can now be seen easily together. Eater is a great outlet for discussions just like the one we are having, so let's not lose sight of its journalistic function and production of some really good media.

I mean, paw through and find some much more culture- and justice-friendly stuff. It's there.
posted by Miko at 7:33 PM on October 4, 2015 [1 favorite]


Money isn't really a real thing y'all. Seems like it, is, when you need it, but it is only our rules that say what a $100 concert ticket is worth to a starving child in (fill in the blank).
posted by Windopaene at 7:35 PM on October 4, 2015


teponaztli, by saying "[there] are very serious people who have these conversations" you're saying that STFUDonnie isn't one and to basically shut up because the adults are talking. It's incredibly dismissive.
posted by urbanwhaleshark at 7:38 PM on October 4, 2015


Oh, I can see how it looked like that, but that's so not what I meant at all. What I meant was that I think those are totally valid questions, and the same ones people who work closely with this stuff take very seriously - but there's a point at which we can get hung up on them endlessly, because no one has ever come up with any definitive response.

It can be frustrating when every discussion about food (or art or what have you) has to first justify itself on moral grounds, because that places a huge burden on everything.
posted by teponaztli at 7:53 PM on October 4, 2015 [2 favorites]


every discussion about food (or art or what have you) has to first justify itself on moral grounds

Right, and this is often unique to food, as if every other form of excess consumption is exempt from the same set of utilitarian metrics. Even those of us in the developed world who never go out for a high-end food performance of this type are all certainly using far more energy and water and space than anyone in the developing world, yet a post about an (energy-consuming) amazing urban light show or how we can all now store stuff in the "cloud" (read: actual energy-guzzling servers) would not draw this kind of zero-sum, limited-resource critique.
posted by Miko at 8:01 PM on October 4, 2015 [11 favorites]


Yeah teponaztli no worries, that's how I took it. But I am curious about this isssue of morality wrt food specifically. I can watch, for example, an hourlong documentary about how Steely Dan spared no expense recording the songs for Aja with five different bands and picking the ones they liked after the fact, and be in total awe and admiration - because nobody's children are crying that they don't have enough Bernard Purdie. But 60 seconds of this squiggly tweezer food and I see red.

Also, they only had to make Aja once, and I've been enjoying my dollar-bin copy for ten years now.
posted by STFUDonnie at 8:06 PM on October 4, 2015 [1 favorite]


But 60 seconds of this squiggly tweezer food and I see red.

Any why? Food can be purchased with money, like anything else. This food represents an investment of money (and time and talent, yes, but all bought with money). Another investment of money might be to feed the hungry children who are crying. But why do investments of money in other, non-food goods not inspire the same rage? Money is fungible, after all - it can be turned into studio time, or parties, or TV shows, or clothing, or air travel, or food. If food is needed, why must the money to supply it be drawn only from other expressions of food? Why not take the wider lens of looking at applications of surplus in a society overall?
posted by Miko at 8:10 PM on October 4, 2015 [6 favorites]


Well, I guess I'm going to have to be the person that says it: There was nothing in that video that I would voluntarily put in my mouth.
posted by TDavis at 8:59 PM on October 4, 2015


I am the person who posted these videos. I feel offended that the discussion was derailed into a direction that I completely did not mean it to go. Yes, I knew that this foodie performance art is not for the 'masses', but heck, I thought it was presented in a unique, unusual, sensual way: these short attention-grabber 1:08 minutes clips, the colors, the surprises. During my youth I used to suffer knowing that as long as there are hungry people, I can not be happy. I teach my 5 year old daughter to feel compassionate to others, and to care. But I think that this is a discussion to another time. Oh heck
posted by growabrain at 9:41 PM on October 4, 2015 [11 favorites]


As I see it, the point of an ethical capitalism is that people should spend most if not all of the money they make. Those who are simply accumulating hundred's of millions of dollars without the investing to this extent aren't really playing the game ethically.

Anyway, sorry to continue the derail, so I'll riff on my immediate response: I only recently began to appreciate this art form and now occasionally enjoy such meals. These people work extremely hard for long hours and generally don't earn a huge amount of money. Like most artists, they have the courage to create despite frequent criticism. I frequently have my preconceptions challenged by what I've seen, smelt and tasted, and that makes it worth the significant financial investment it is.

Thanks for posting growabrain, I only wish I could taste it all!
posted by bigZLiLk at 9:58 PM on October 4, 2015 [3 favorites]


me too, bigZ
(I was a chef for 10 years in Denmark in the 70's, so I love and appreciate good food)
posted by growabrain at 10:07 PM on October 4, 2015 [1 favorite]


[Everyone, please drop this derail. For future reference, STFUDonnie, please don't do this. If you think people should be discussing something else, you can make a post about your preferred topic, or you can contact moderators if you think the post should be removed.]
posted by taz at 10:48 PM on October 4, 2015 [6 favorites]


Was that last dish a balloon made of custard? Looked awesome, but I'm not sure how you would eat it without getting covered in custard (or whatever it was made of).
posted by Kris10_b at 12:11 AM on October 5, 2015


Oh yeah, I didn't even mention how interesting the video was. So much of this is so far beyond how I expect to see food, which I would imagine is the whole idea. But I'm also curious to know how much your appreciation for this sort of thing changes, or even deepens, when you're familiar with everything that has happened in the culinary world in the last couple decades.

I'm thinking of art, where a lot of modern art can be aesthetically pleasing, but there's also this dimension of self-reference that makes things particularly exciting if you know what's going on (or, I guess, what can make something look trite if you've seen it a million times already). I had a friend who was a pretty well-situated artist; we'd go to gallery shows together and I might have no opinion on something while she'd be thrilled. I'd ask her about it and she'd say, basically, that a lot of stuff was taking developments in art that were already new and exciting and putting interesting spins on them. "Yeah, it's ridiculous how much this stuff expects you to follow the art world super closely," she'd say.

You could read that as a dismissal of the art world, or of me, but what I'm trying to get at is to ask how much of the sorts of dishes in this video may have drawn from that same kind of in-group knowledge. I certainly don't mean that as a criticism, but I guess I'm just trying to ask if I somehow missed the point on any of that - the dishes looked interesting to me, but more as novelties than anything else. I'm guessing there's something I don't fully appreciate, and I'd like to see how, if possible.
posted by teponaztli at 1:20 AM on October 5, 2015 [1 favorite]


The video immediately below that linked from the FPP was "60 Second Junk Food Tasting Menu by Chef Jacques La Merde". More like that, please.
posted by hwestiii at 4:24 AM on October 5, 2015


teponatzli: One good source for more background on what is happening at Alinea is this 2008 New Yorker profile of its chef, Grant Achatz. He's part of a lineage of chefs who are looking to just reimagine the way food is presented and break with culinary assumptions from 19th-century France which still generally govern professional kitchens, and just like you point out, he's riffing on and extending movements that started before him (Thomas Keller being a major figure in introducing some of them), but he's especially artful, playful and imaginative. I've never had the good fortune of eating his food, but what I love when I read about it is the poetry - he creates scent, sound, taste and touch illusions with his food that add up to an experience that becomes a touchstone for memory. I think that's pretty awesome.
posted by Miko at 6:11 AM on October 5, 2015 [7 favorites]


Grant Achatz previously on M-F (Including ANOTHER post I made about Alinea) here. Alinea's Youtube channel here. Making the edible Helium Balloon.
posted by growabrain at 7:45 AM on October 5, 2015 [1 favorite]


There are so very many terrific restaurants in many towns these days. Genuinely fantastic food. But there are now people with so very much disposable income, and they want More. So somebody is providing More. It's kind of gross. It's overconsumption, luxury on a stupid scale. It's not the worst. The worst excesses are out of our view on yachts and at luxury resorts. The more of it I see, the more I want the return of the progressive income tax.
posted by theora55 at 6:27 AM on October 6, 2015


It's overconsumption, luxury on a stupid scale.

I guess I just don't see why this is "gross" and on a "stupid" scale moreso than any other art form that costs money to experience. I mean, tickets to the ballet are expensive (and tickets to a pop culture rock show even moreso, as noted above). Is that a luxury on a "stupid scale"? Buying an original painting: gross?

I mean maybe so! Maybe anything we do above subsistence is disgusting and unethical. But if so, going to those "terrific" restaurants in your town is just as revolting as going to Alinea, while being rather less interesting. Why is a $50 meal okay and a $300 meal gross? A genuinely impoverished person can't afford either one.

(I say this as someone who has been to Alinea and Schwa and those kinds of places a number of times, but who would never be on the painful end of a progressive income tax.)
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 9:11 AM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


So somebody is providing More. It's kind of gross. It's overconsumption, luxury on a stupid scale.

It's really not. A $25K martini with a giant diamond in it is overconsumption and luxury on a stupid scale. A $200 burger is overconsumption and luxury on a stupid scale.

What they do at Alinea and Faviken and noma and The Fat Duck and minibar (the list goes on) is expensive solely because of how many people it takes to make it work. It is, as I said, an artform that happens to be edible. A symphony performance.

Here is the prep kitchen--not even the service kitchen--at noma. (Another shot). For comparison, they have 45 seats, and there are twelve people just doing prep; the restaurant I work in has 34 and there's only three of us in the kitchen.

On top of the actual prep and service work, most of these high end places also have research kitchens that are also staffed, staff that are working on projects that a guest won't even be tasting for six (or more) months in some cases.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:36 AM on October 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


Also, as a person who loves and is interested in food, if I happen to have $100-300 disposable income and I want to prioritize it on enjoying food, I'm not sure why I should come in for a rougher drubbing than the many, many people I know who are happy to spend that on shoes, clothes, or makeup. You really can't tell everything about a person's wealth by their interest in high-end dining and their ability to do it now and then on a rare basis. Food and travel are, for me, worth a little extra investment because they are adventures and experiences I can enjoy now and remember always. They are where I derive a lot of life's meaning. Other people with $100-300 to treat themselves once a year might find it more satisfying to spend that on a ski pass or a massage or a pro football game or accessories for their truck or hunting or hockey gear or hair. I don't get to eat at that level very often,maybe once a year, so when I save and plan for it and do it once a year or so, I dislike being singled out of all disposable-income spenders because I chose to treat myself with food rather than something else. Sure, a lot of the people who keep these places in business are habitual overconsumers who could care less and don't have to make every decision about eating with deep thought and care because they could do it every week if they so chose. But some of them are like my SIL's parents, who live very frugally and simply all year long and splurge on their birthdays and anniversary - so, 2-3 times a year- on theatre or opera and an incredible meal.
posted by Miko at 11:27 AM on October 6, 2015 [2 favorites]


I've never been to one of these art show restaurants. Do you even feel full after? Back in the Alinea thread, people were talking about it taking five hours to go through the entire dinner, and most of the dishes being shown or talked about were like ... two cubic centimeters of foam.
posted by kafziel at 11:56 AM on October 6, 2015


No you don't, not really--not in the way you'll feel full after a steak. And going there for dinner-because-I-need-fuel is not a reason one goes there. You don't go to a concert just because you want to hear the songs you can listen to at home, you go for the experience.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 12:28 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


I've never been to one of these art show restaurants. Do you even feel full after?

I know not everyone feels full, exactly, when they leave, but after a night at Moto I was so full I nearly vomited. It was a tragedy -- I was forced to mostly pass over the last two courses.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:29 PM on October 6, 2015 [1 favorite]


(I mean even when the food is tiny, if there's 16 courses of it, plus wine? You're gonna be full. Admittedly Moto is a little less on the air-and-foam side of things, or at least it was when I ate there.)
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 1:31 PM on October 6, 2015


Yeah and I would point out that everyone I know or have read who's eaten at Per Se or TFL has reported feeling unbelievably full after--not so after Alinea or elBulli. So there's something of a continuum.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 1:50 PM on October 6, 2015


What they do at Alinea and Faviken and noma and The Fat Duck and minibar (the list goes on) is expensive solely because of how many people it takes to make it work.

Things may have changed, but F?viken used to run with a fairly small crew. But given what they offer, and what it'll cost you to get there anyway (*), I don't think they're overpriced.

*) unless you live nearby, which I sometimes do. still don't think they're overpriced. now if their reservation system wasn't such a horrible affront to proper information design. grumble grumble :-)
posted by effbot at 3:26 AM on October 7, 2015


(...also, didn't elBulli shut down because they couldn't afford to keep it running? I don't think people run these kinds of places to make a quick buck...)
posted by effbot at 3:28 AM on October 7, 2015


No you don't, not really--not in the way you'll feel full after a steak. And going there for dinner-because-I-need-fuel is not a reason one goes there. You don't go to a concert just because you want to hear the songs you can listen to at home, you go for the experience.

I understand your point, but I'd rather not pay $300/plate for food and need to hit McDonald's or something on the way home.
posted by kafziel at 12:55 PM on October 7, 2015


Frankly, I am sure that you wouldn't.
posted by Miko at 2:14 PM on October 7, 2015


(...also, didn't elBulli shut down because they couldn't afford to keep it running? I don't think people run these kinds of places to make a quick buck...)

Not exactly. That was certainly a factor of course. Mostly the owners (Juli Soler, general manager; Ferran Adria, chef) realized, to quote Soler, that they were not in the business "to say no to people." They had 8000 seats per year to offer, and towards the end, two million reservation requests per year. It became impossible, on both an artistic and business level, to continue.

And, my personal theory.. Adria once said that he'd stop when he felt he had no creativity left, no new ideas to give. After just shy of two thousand brand new never seen by the world before ways of thinking about food, maybe he was done.

I understand your point, but I'd rather not pay $300/plate for food and need to hit McDonald's or something on the way home.

How often do you leave a concert and pop on your mp3 player or your car radio? You are making a category error. You do not go to the really out-there places for dinner, you go for an experience. It is a concert for your mouth, not your intestines.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 10:31 PM on October 7, 2015 [1 favorite]


I finally realized why this bugs me so much - It seems to me like the privileged grown up's equivalent to playing with your food.
posted by STFUDonnie at 7:26 AM on October 8, 2015


Adria once said that he'd stop when he felt he had no creativity left

I think he also became an international celebrity and wanted to take advantages of opportunities to travel, speak, teach, lecture, etc. He has been doing a lot of interesting programming in museums and science centers, for instance, and the interaction of food, science, and arts. I think his interests have just evolved and reached another level that isn't getting ready for the 7:30 seating every night.

It seems to me like the privileged grown up's equivalent to playing with your food

I find that to be the same as saying "no art is valuable." If these same grownups went to an art museum to take in a gallery show of imaginative, playful, sensory work that's moving and memory-evoking, would you have a similar reaction? What if they went to a historic site to see a live re-enactment of a battle or a treaty signing, "playing" with the idea of reviving historical events? Or what if they went to a live performance art program that involved "playing" with theatre, interaction, light, clothing, dance? Is all creative play worthless? If not, how is that sort of creative play different than creative play with food?

It seems to me that perhaps people have trouble considering food in anything other than its evolutionary capacity: to support life. I mean, we are capable of seeing shelter outside of an evolutionary capacity to sustain life, as we indulge in decorating our apartments and enjoying a variety of architectural styles, from cabins and trailers to enormous mansions. We are even capable of seeing sex outside of its evolutionary capacity, as playful, fun, satisfying, entertaining - but not food. Dance, art, music - there is an argument that all these things are far less important than food, but we don't seem to direct the same level of contempt at those artistic productions, when arguing that food can't be the basis of an artistic experience strikes me as the same as arguing that there should be no artistic experiences, because none of them have the capacity to produce the directly life-sustaining results that food does.

Another inconsistency: most of us eat a lot more food than we need to survive. Is that "gross?" Is that privileged excess? People who advocate calorie restriction, for instance, survive on a third to a half fewer calories than the average Western diet gives us. So they do fine just consuming what is absolutely necessary to sustaining life. Does that then make every calorie you eat above 1000 a day superfluous, repulsive excess? Because you don't need it, at a physical level, and your overeating does waste food that could otherwise go to someone else.

Whatever people are reacting to in the very existence of artistic food movements, I really don't think it's about food or about waste. Because if we are concerned about feeding the hungry and not wasting food, the solution is certainly not to close high-end restaurants, but to restructure economically, strengthen the social safety net with easily accessible food support, and do something to curtail the 30-40% of total calories lost to food waste in America, for starters.
posted by Miko at 8:01 AM on October 8, 2015 [2 favorites]


It's not, any more than professional dance is a privileged grownup flopping around at playtime, or a concert is a privileged grownup making noises in music class, or or or.

You don't get it, fine. Maybe try listening to those of us who do get it (and in my case at least, actually work in fine dining) and trying to understand that literally the only thing you're doing here is saying those grapes are sour.

Chefs who work at this level are trying to engage you on more than just "is your tummy full" metrics. They're attempting a sense of play, of wonder. They're trying to make you feel certain memories (see Pond by Adria; Achatz' peanut butter and jelly sandwich), or twist your perceptions (orange and beetroot by Heston Blumenthal), engage you in the cooking process (the hen and the egg by Redzepi), explore a singular location and what it tastes like (can't remember the name, Redzepi again, a dish containing ingredients taken from a single field; indeed noma is all about a 'sense of time and place' in cooking), and sometimes just make you laugh.

Some of their dishes are self-referential--Adria and Blumenthal have referenced each other. Adria especially is known for referencing (usually Catalan) artists in his work; he did a trout dish once after Gaudi, for example. Many dishes recontextualize the very nature of what 'food' is, what a 'meal' is. And nothing, not one bloody thing, they do is any different than going to a Pink Floyd concert--after all, you have the album at home. Going to see them and their inflatable pigs onstage is obviously just privileged adults playing.

I suggest you look up the short documentary Decoding Ferran Adria. It was a special episode of No Reservations. It's hosted by Bourdain, who wrestles with many of the same questions; for years he derided Adria as "that foam guy." To give you the tldr version (and still: watch it), Adria's philosophy is that all food is transformation. The process to get from a live pig to sublime jamon iberico is transformation. From grape to wine is transformation. From milk to cheese. Etc. So what's the difference here? Cost? Well...

The reason why this food is so expensive is because it's really, really hard to do. It takes a lot of people an incredible amount of time. Why? Because everything is done by hand from scratch. Apart from occasionally whimsical notions (Adria did a dish using 3Ds--Bugles in North America), everything enters those kitchens as raw, basic, usually whole (read The Sorcerer's Apprentices for an account of cleaning rabbit heads, I think it was) ingredients--often but not always from local farmers who produce on scales that are not agribusiness. In other words, they're making food exactly how so many of us want food produced: from ingredients that are not chemically massaged into looking beautiful, raised by people relatively local to the restaurant (not always, obviously) or indeed foraged by the people who work in the restaurant (green pine cones and almonds at elBulli; half the menus at least at Faviken and noma), who are paid a fair amount for what they produce.

I've said it before, this preening sneering reverse snobbery at what is in the end just food is one of the greatest disappointments at MeFi, and it is depressingly predictable. Try bucking the trend and educating yourself about what this food actually is before the kneejerk your favourite band food sucks.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:01 AM on October 8, 2015 [2 favorites]


and do something to curtail the 30-40% of total calories lost to food waste in America, for starters.

Support Second Harvest or similar local orgs. (Disclosure: I volunteer for SH locally). Ask the restaurants and grocery stores your patronize what they do with the food they cannot sell but is still edible; provide them with contact info. Keep asking until you see the SH (or local equivalent) trucks pulling up. Good Samaritan laws protect them.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 11:10 PM on October 8, 2015 [1 favorite]


« Older Go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!   |   A ponderous, scholastic joke Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments