tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17155320.post411728944200670318..comments2008-03-26T23:29:16.787-04:00Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13433167934519913445noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17155320.post-7920465094554955002008-03-26T23:29:00.000-04:002008-03-26T23:29:00.000-04:002008-03-26T23:29:00.000-04:00If the article touches upon an actual current, I hope we are at least left with a legacy of enjoying rich foods for their abundance of flavor, if not for the richness itself. That being said, I tend to distrust any article that tries to coin a new term, especially one as silly as "Fat Pack." That kind of stuff seems better suited for the Styles section.<BR/><BR/>Also, I'm far more excited about <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/dining/26ninety.html?ex=1364270400&en=6d0adbdf087b892a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink" REL="nofollow">this</A> article, which is pretty honest for a New York Times piece about afforable eats.Dave Leehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03023611602587325096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17155320.post-85129909516461036512008-03-19T11:32:00.000-04:002008-03-19T11:32:00.000-04:002008-03-19T11:32:00.000-04:00<A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/dining/19fat.html?pagewanted=2&_r=3&oref=slogin&ref=dining" REL="nofollow">What say you to this article in the NYT?</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com