It was certainly a vocal week on City of Ate. People like bc, jamey, curmudgeon and DallasDude churned out more words that I did--at least it seems that way.
Of course, we're still on our 'no prizes' kick so their efforts earn them little more than our appreciation. We did have a real winner this week, though: our own demented artist and web guy Patrick Michels beat all comers in a hot wing eating contest. Of course, the loquacious bc put the victory in perspective: "I ate 50 Fire in the Holes and a piece of Cheesecake in one sitting prior to going vegan. Picture's still on the wall. Do you hear that? You got beat by a vegan in a wing eating contest. For shame."
Oh, well: Patrick's feat earned him a $100 certificate for more wings. The words of bc--however timely, clever and worthy we think they are--get nothing. Nor do this week's other non-winners:
Responding to the fried chicken battle between Babe's and Williams, bruce explained "I can't eat Williams chicken ever again thanks to a guy that ran a restaurant across the street from the Williams that opened in my neighborhood. 'That place makes the whole area smell like piss' he told me. I'll be damned if the guy wasnt right."
Wine guy Paul Burrough, bravely using a real name, revealed a zealous streak with this comment in response to Veggie Guy's survey of vegan-friendly beers: "but what about all those poor litle yeasts that were killed to make your beer? WHO WILL SPEAK FOR THE FALLEN YEAST!!!???"
He later apologized for his warped sense of humor.
We Believe Local Journalism is Critical to the Life of a City
Engaging with our readers is essential to the Observer's mission. Make a financial contribution or sign up for a newsletter, and help us keep telling Dallas's stories with no paywalls.
Support Our Journalism
It was the week bc dominated, so we'll give him another nod for this response to the vegan-meat eating debate: "In today's reality there are too many competitive advantages for the larger companies and their push for these advantages through favorable regulations for themselves isn't in our best interest as consumers. If we can all agree that there are reputable farmers/ranchers who use sustainable and ethical practices, wouldn't we wish that they be able to use those practices to the end? If I raise livestock in such a manner, only to have to send it for processing at a plant that has less than desirable employees, controls, and could be contaminated as a result of the unsustainably raised animals processed the day before (or even the same day), could it be construed that all of my hard work and dedication might be lessened in the end result? Until there are more sustainable operations who can demand these changes, we're at the mercy of the decisions of what's best for business for the big boys."
Hard to argue with that. In fact, Bob Dobbsson couldn't even understand why people bother debating the topic: "I don't see any sense in arguing it. I mean, your morality is your business as long as you're not breaking any laws. I'll leave you to it, if you'll kindly leave me to mine. Which brings me to what I really don't get about the whole issue. I just don't get the vehemence surrounding it. Whether you're a vegan or not, why do you feel the need to degrade the other side? I mean, I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Humans do it in every other aspect of life."
And for the final word, we'll turn to Chuck Watts, commenting on another person's suggestion that Goats Head Soup by the Rolling Stones should have made the top 10 food-related album covers list: "If you think Goats Head Soup has food on the album cover, you're a more broad-minded diner than I."
Real non-winners want no prizes.