Building a Chicago style dog

Re:Building a Chicago style dog 2013/03/16 03:23:34
What a perfect (and perfectly appetizing) illustration of the CSD construction.  What took 'em so long?
ann peeples
Re:Building a Chicago style dog 2013/03/16 04:20:20
Filet Mignon
Re:Building a Chicago style dog 2013/03/16 09:56:45
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
Filet Mignon
Re:Building a Chicago style dog 2013/03/16 11:38:25
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)....
Double Chili Cheeseburger
Re:Building a Chicago style dog 2013/03/17 09:33:29
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.