Building a Chicago style dog

Author Message
  • Total Posts : 3219
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 9/10/2003
  • Location: Hot Dog University Chicago, IL
Building a Chicago style dog - Fri, 03/15/13 9:56 PM

  • Total Posts : 4086
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 12/10/2004
  • Location: Des Plaines, IL
Re:Building a Chicago style dog - Sat, 03/16/13 3:23 AM
What a perfect (and perfectly appetizing) illustration of the CSD construction.  What took 'em so long?

ann peeples
  • Total Posts : 8317
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 5/21/2006
  • Location: West Allis, Wisconsin
Re:Building a Chicago style dog - Sat, 03/16/13 4:20 AM

  • Total Posts : 2251
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 3/16/2011
  • Location: Kennewick, WA
Re:Building a Chicago style dog - Sat, 03/16/13 9:56 AM
Hi Mark, great job on the illustration, that will help a lot of people understand how to build the perfect Chicago style dog............................I was looking for ( press #11) and it shows you taking a bite out of the dog.........pnwc

  • Total Posts : 2376
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 12/1/2006
  • Location: Pewaukee, WI & Fuquay-Varina, NC
Re:Building a Chicago style dog - Sat, 03/16/13 11:38 AM
Great visuals Mark.  Thanks for sharing.
After learning your facts, I decided to find out how the goofs at Wikipedia got it wrong.  Remarkably, they got the toppings exactly right.
The best thing there is a link in the footnotes to The Straight Dope.
Q. Why is there no ketchup on a properly made hot dog?
A. Paul, I know you don't mean to act like an alfalfa-chewing barbarian, but this is like asking why Leonardo didn't paint the Mona Lisa on black velvet. Ketchup is destructive of all that is right and just about a properly assembled hot dog (and we're talking about a pure beef hot dog, not one of those things you could serve with dressing on Thanksgiving)....

  • Total Posts : 1209
  • Reward points : 0
  • Joined: 7/6/2004
  • Location: New Milford, NJ
Re:Building a Chicago style dog - Sun, 03/17/13 9:33 AM
Wikipedia is normally pretty accurate. And if it isn't, you can fix it. It's just not authoritative. It like logical fallacies; using one doesn't prove your conclusion to be right, but they generally can be used as a evidence. Note that what IS extremely useful in Wikipedia if you want to get at the facts are the cross-references, which frequently ARE authoritative (and note that using the fact that a source is authoritative as proof that it is correct is also a logical fallacy; it simply makes it much more likely that it is correct).
So, just because Wikipedia is not authoritative does not mean that one should be surprised when it is right.