And you're comparing Boston to where?

Let's see...compared to New York, San Fransisco, Chicago, Miami, Seattle...Washington D.C.. Anyone that's a foodie (gourmand, food snob) knows that Boston's really a second- tier metropolis when it comes to dining.

Guess you fit squarely in your own definition of a foodie (which is not necessarily the same thing as an expert, I might add).

But as I expected, you also "suffer" from the chauvinism of the coastal (including Lake Mich., I guess) big cities in that it doesn't seem to occur to you that some tourists do not start in one of those august large cities -- not their frame of reference.

It also doesn't seem to occur to you that there's almost no point in putting down an entire city that some poster is planning to visit, other than to show off your foodie-ness.

It really isn't worth arguing whether Boston's restaurants -- on some incalculable, undefinable average -- measure up in comparison to the other cities you mention. That would be an assessment that goes well beyond the subjective into the silliness of saying "everyone who is worth paying attention to thinks this..."

What if it does measure up? And what if it doesn't? Should flygirl2 despair of bothering with any Boston restaurants, or should she just approach a place like Legal Seafoods with pre-arranged disappointment because it won't measure up to the best New York or San Francisco have to offer?

May I assume your paradigm of tourism is only to visit world-class cities and eat at 5-star restaurants -- and then compare them to New York, et al? Not mine, for sure.

Cassandra: My initial post was directed to Jea1976, hence the "For Jea1976". It was not directed to the poster, perhaps you should re-read it.

You were "talking to" more readers than just Jea1976, because that's how these posts work. And my points stand, in both posts.