Skip to main content

Confessions of a barbecue sauce addict

I'm no foodie, but I do enjoy a good meal and I think I can tell good stuff from bad. But I have a cullinary Achilles heel. Barbecue sauce. I only have to see 'smothered in barbecue sauce' on the menu and I want it. 'Old boot, smothered in our signature barbecue sauce,' it might read. Mmm, yes, please.

I really don't know why it is, but barbecue sauce just pushes the brain out of the way and directly engages the stomach. Maybe they used barbecue sauce back in prehistoric times and it's some kind of race memory.

However, I have to report progress. We went to T G I Friday's the other day and I managed to resist the lure of barbecue sauce, trying their Jack Daniels glaze instead. And yes, it was good* - I didn't regret it. I can do this. There is life after barbecue sauce.

* T G I Friday's please note this piece is not advertising, but I would be happy to receive free vouchers etc.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Mike28 October 2009 at 15:04

    Great post, and I share your addiction. I sometimes wonder, if sufficiently tempted, would I actually just take a slug of barbecue sauce right from the bottle? The answer: probably, for the right sauce, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Angela Saini29 October 2009 at 05:48

    Me too! My tip: Save up the little bbq sauce pots you get with the chicken nuggets at McDonald's and then you can have it with everything!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg1 November 2009 at 15:05

    Mike - glad to know I'm not alone. I wish I was joking but those words 'smothered with barbecue sauce' (it has to be 'smothered') get me going every time.

    Angela - cunning plan. I don't know what (say) Gordon Ramsey would say about you turning up with a McDonalds sauce pot in his restaurant. Actually I do know, but I can't repeat it here.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more