So, I want to make sure that I understand something.
A "great restaurant" is not defined as a place in which if you order "the right thing" you can properly digest it without feeling some serious side effects one way or the other, right? I mean, a "great restaurant" would suggest that the food is better than just palpable, correct?
Without fail, every single time I let myself get talked into going to some shady joint, pay in cash only, no place to sit, sells RC cola instead of coke or pepsi, no sign identifying the joint... whether it be Pho or Argentine food or some "dive" or some food truck, I regret it, instantly... for at least 8 hours.
Whatever, call me high-maintenance, I don't care!
But, it appears to always be my fault if the restaurant is NOT a up to par... "it IS a great restaurant!" I just "ordered the wrong thing!"
So, for the record, I believe a "great restaurant" (or even a "good restaurant", as I don't want to aim too high here) is one where you could order anything off the menu (or at least a relatively significant sampling of items), and feel satiated - in a non-violently ill fashion; where the taste lingers just long enough; and where the menu items have names you could recite to the individual taking your order instead of having to point to the picture and say "I will have that. That doesn't look like it'll kill me... at least not immediately."
With that being said... this is where I went to lunch today...
This place.... the place with no sign... the boys just call it "that Argentine place, the one with the sandwiches."
It really WAS my fault this time... who agrees to that?!?