chicagostyledog
-
Total Posts:
3129
- Joined: 9/10/2003
- Location: Hot Dog University Chicago, IL
|
Building a Chicago style dog
Fri, 03/15/13 9:56 PM
( permalink)
|
|
|
|
BuddyRoadhouse
-
Total Posts:
3831
- Joined: 12/10/2004
- Location: Des Plaines, IL
|
Re:Building a Chicago style dog
Sat, 03/16/13 3:23 AM
( permalink)
What a perfect (and perfectly appetizing) illustration of the CSD construction. What took 'em so long?
Buddy
|
|
|
|
ann peeples
-
Total Posts:
7838
- Joined: 5/21/2006
- Location: West Allis, Wisconsin
|
Re:Building a Chicago style dog
Sat, 03/16/13 4:20 AM
( permalink)
Perfect!
|
|
|
|
pnwchef
-
Total Posts:
1593
- Joined: 3/16/2011
- Location: Kennewick, WA
|
Re:Building a Chicago style dog
Sat, 03/16/13 9:56 AM
( permalink)
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
|
|
|
|
JRPfeff
-
Total Posts:
2007
- Joined: 12/1/2006
- Location: Pewaukee, WI & Apex, NC
|
Re:Building a Chicago style dog
Sat, 03/16/13 11:38 AM
( permalink)
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)....
|
|
|
|
bartl
-
Total Posts:
938
- Joined: 7/6/2004
- Location: New Milford, NJ
|
Re:Building a Chicago style dog
Sun, 03/17/13 9:33 AM
( permalink)
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.
Bart
|
|
|
|
