Seattle's Hottest Spots has moved. Check out the new URL at "http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/rharmon/". We still have a few details to correct, but we're back up & running, so come see what's hot in our neck of the woods. Robert Harmon
Seattle, WA
See what Seattle, Tacoma, & the Pacific Northwest has to offer
Robert H. wrote: > > Seattle's Hottest Spots has moved. > > Check out the new URL at "http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/rharmon/". > > We still have a few details to correct, but we're back up & running, so > come see what's hot in our neck of the woods. > > Robert Harmon > -- > CHRIS HARMON & ASSOCIATES, Management & Training Consultants > Post Office Box 2756 | Kirkland, Washington 98083-2756 > TELE: 206.814.3204 | FAX: 206.820.4807 | E-MAIL: [email removed] > > Seattle's HOT restaurant & tourist info - http://www.halcyon.com/harmonr/ I checked this list out and it's definitely not hot. The list of "Northwest Style" seafood restaurants fails to list any of the hot restaurants in town, for example, none of Tom Douglas' restaurants (Dahlia Lounge, Etta's, Palace) make the list. Instead you see extremely ordinary restaurants like Salty's and Ivars on the list. I follow the local food scene a little, and the above URL definitely does not qualify as the "hottest spots".
In article , Ronald Schoenberg Someone wrote: > Robert H. wrote: > > > > Seattle's Hottest Spots has moved. > > > > Check out the new URL at "http://home.sprynet.com/sprynet/rharmon/". > > > I checked this list out and it's definitely not hot. The list > of "Northwest Style" seafood restaurants fails to list any of > the hot restaurants in town, ... > I follow the local food scene a little, and the above URL > definitely does not qualify as the "hottest spots". I have to agree. Robert, you read seattle.eats, and also tout your page frequently. But your collection of restaurtants seems to be a minimal set, probabaly the places you are willing to eat, and it does not seem like you try to cover much ground. You don't really explain how your list is selected, which should probably be explained more up front. You don't have to like all the places, but if you want your list to be considered comprehensive, you should include the most reasonable alternatives. For BBQ, you list 3 places, Macs, Texas Smokehouse and Armadillo. There are probably at least 8 other places frequently mentioned on the list, places like Dixies, the Generals, 3 Pigs. You may not like them, but to not include places that are so frequently mentioned leaves me with the feeling your list is quite incomplete. If you can't get there to eat personally, list it as unrated until you can. For Thai you list 3 places, Bai Tong, City Thai, Wild Ginger. Again there are 5 or 6 other frequently mentioned places here in this group worth listing. Probably more. In Bellevue alone I have seen mentioned River Kwai, The King and I, Thai Kitchen (also one in Kirkland), and Thai Chef. There is also a City Thai in Redmond by Skate King... is it the same folks as the one you mention in Kirkland? Indian food, again only 3, India House, Raga and Shamiana. No IndiaGate? Again this group has discussed 4 or 5 other alternatives, many very good. For burgers you have a WHOPPERing 5, Kidd Valey, Gullivers, Burgermaster, Red Robin, and Dicks. No surprises, not much help. Clearly the best known of our local non-MacD's style chains. But there are lots of places, pubs and real restaurants that server killer burgers. I think the burgers at Leschi Lake Cafe, or the Kirkland Roaster, are pretty fine... The longest list you have is Northwest cuisine, totaling 6 recommendations. The criteria seems to be fish, or fish and chips to belong here, which is not how I would describe, or at least limit, Northwest Cuisine. You hae several with 5 recommendations, and then things like your list of Japanese and French is only 2. What is your method of selection for your pages, and do you really consider them comprehensive. Or, perhaps the better question is... what do you mean by "Seattle's Hottest Spots"? Also, you pages are not served as fast from sprynet as they were from Halcyon (for me anyway).
Dave B. wrote: > > Someone wrote: > >Robert H. wrote: > (With deletions...) > >> > >> Did you even bother looking at my reviews before going off on me? I recommend > >> Salty's for the best view of Seattle while dining & their excellant brunch. > >> Also, their seafood offerings are very good, and if they're not to your > >> tastes, they satisfy millions of customers annually. There are many places > >> favored by others that I find ordinary or worse, and these do not get listed. > > ... > > >You problem seems to be an inability to tell the difference between your > >favorite restaurants and the "hottest" restaurants. > > ... > > >If your going to put up a page titled "Seattle's Hottest Spots", you had > >better be prepared to defend yourself. Seattle is coming into its own > >as a "foodie" town. Seattle is attracting chefs who want to make a > >name. Some will make it and some won't. And those that make here in > >Seattle, like Tom Douglas and Leslie Mackie (only two examples off the > >top of my head), will get national attention. "Foodies" like me want > >to know about these people and where they are presenting their food > >ideas. A web page that talked about these things would have a right > >to call itself "Seattle's Hottest Restaurants" (other kinds of hot > >spots is another topic). > > > >Your page doesn't seem to know anything about what's really hot in > >food in Seattle. You should expect to get some flack, then, when > >you claim that you do. > > Why on earth are you getting so bent out of shape over the > definition of a historically vague colloquialism like "hot spot"?! > Jeez Louise, if it bugs you so much, maybe you should *sue* > Robert Harmon for misrepresentation, then the Supreme Court can > decide once and for all what constitutes a "hot spot". The problem I have is not with "hot spot" but with "hottest spots", i.e., his claim that his page is the list of the most hot spots. > > The phrase is entirely subjective - it's not quantifiable. > If you have a boilerplate definition of "hot spot", let's > hear it. I'd sincerely like to know. > > The hottest show on television... > -- > David Breneman ################# Mondays (really Tuesday) > The Spud Goodman Show ####### ####### at 1:00 AM on KCPQ-13 > [email removed] ##### ##### > .. (_) - - - Ciao. Foodwise, Seattle used to be mostly ordinary. About ten years ago it graduated from the Rosellini 500, Canlis, and Anthony Homeports level of cuisine to another level altogether. Restaurants were opened with chefs with aspirations beyond Seattle, and they have generally succeeded. These restaurants feature original and creative cuisine and are competing for national attention. I would call these restaurants "hot" restaurants. There are plenty of very fine restaurants that are not "hot" restaurants, like Ponti's near the Fremont Bridge. They serve excellent food, but they are not part of the "new wave". Ponti's would be on my "favorite" list, but not my "hot" list. Harmon's "hottest spots" list doesn't contain *any* of these new "hot" restaurants. Tom Douglas is a local boy done well who has opened three restaurants to which "foodies" from California and the East Coast are pilgrimaging. Clearly the Dahlia Lounge, Etta's and the Palace Kitchen are "hot" on a national level. But not on Bob Harmon's page. Bob Harmon doesn't include any of Tom Douglas's restaurants under any category in his page. In a net post he said that Etta's (Douglas's second restaurant) wasn't really "Northwest". In fact, Douglas's restaurants are quintessential Northwest and he is one of the few hot chefs that is actually a native. I suspect Harmon doesn't consider it "Northwest" because it is new and creative. Anything that isn't the same old, tired version of broiled fish with a butter sauce just isn't "Northwest", in his opinion. Harmon, therefore, doesn't include a restaurant in his "hottest spots" list precisely because it is new and creative. That makes his list oxymoronic. It should be the "traditional spots" list.