Spike drove the entire disappointing effort, but he's also dominated this season's talking-head time, and Manuel goes home for being, uh, a "follower."

I think Manuel went home because he was the weaker chef of the two.

I think that sometimes, when the judges are torn, the more colorful people stay, because the producers do influence the decisions sometimes.

I'd love to hear what you think are examples of this in action. I think that usually the person who stays is the one that has been a better chef overall, regardless of whether they are "colorful."

I also think even if the cooking level that day was equal, the "colorful" person probably shows more potential for being a Top Chef, as opposed to a good cook. Actually, I think might be more true on Project Runway, but it's the same idea.

I don't know about that, though. Look at Sam. Hard to find a more mellow guy, outside of his one blow-up at Marcel.

Look at Sam. Hard to find a more mellow guy, outside of his one blow-up at Marcel.

Yeah, but he was delightful to look at.

But when was he mediocre?

Well, no, you're right about that Jesse. Not mediocre at all.

And very pleasant to look at, lisah.

Maybe Dave was sort of mediocre, but kept around for the "I'm not your bitch, bitch" drama?

I thought Dave was a pretty good cook, though. The over the top emotional drama was just a bonus! If they'd really wanted to keep the drama quotient high in S1 they'd have kept Miguel (I think he really would've put a beat down on Tiff eventually) or Stephen or heck even that ridiculous ass from the first episode who licked his fingers and kept putting them back in the food. Ewww.

I really am liking Richard quite a bit. But then again, I liked Marcel. And I liked Hung, too. And even Stephen grew on me. Huh, maybe I secretly love molecular gastronomy, although I don't think I've never had it.

Maybe Dave was sort of mediocre, but kept around for the "I'm not your bitch, bitch" drama?

Didn't Dave only lose at the end because he was missing a dish?

Huh, maybe I secretly love molecular gastronomy, although I don't think I've never had it.

Having been to WD40, I can't say I'm impressed. I get the impression that molecular gastronomy is a lot like most powerpoint presentations: Lots of fancy gadgetry, but, when all is said and done, there's no reason it couldn't (or shouldn't) have been done the old-fashioned way.

Upside to staying home with a sick baby who just wanted to sleep all day - I got to catch up on Top Chef.

I like Richard. I think his approach to molecular gastronomy is the right one - technology in the kitchen evolves like technology everywhere else, and if you use it right, it can help you make better food. And occasionally, you wind up with something like the immersion circulator, which started out in molecular gastronomy and is now almost completely mainstream.

Andrew, and Spike need to stop being such jackasses, and Spike needs to take off that stupid hat before I make him eat it.

Zoi, if you're not creative enough to be coming up with innovative and exciting food to serve to the judges (who have eaten in a LOT of good restaurants and aren't about to be impressed just because you can broil a lamb chop), what the hell are you doing in this competition? It's not Top Sous Chef or Top Grill Station Line Cook. Please to be fucking off.

And really, Talk To Her???? You're getting recipe inspirations from a movie about coma rape? Really?

But it's a movie about 2 strong women!

rolls her eyes

They should have done Like Water for Chocolate and used no chocolate but got inspired by another dish, like the rose petal recipe.