Wow! Talk about reaching back, Jim. I had to seach the thread to see where and how that fit.
But you're right. The key word is "context." And within the context of the discussion, I stand by what I said.
Back then, Ed was trying to make a point that you have to know all about food, including the names of things and the techniques for making them, to be able to write a meaningful review. He also was contending, as is his wont, that professionals in the food industry automatically fit that mold, and that writers automatically do not.
My contention was, and remains, that that is far from true. Whether paired with its intended partner or not, if the reviewer found that the pink stuff ( in the context of that dish was implied, btw) was bad, it would still be bad, even if he knew it was a reduced beet juice in sour cream.
I get a little testy on this subject, not only because of who I am, professionally, but because more than half the book reviewers here at Cheftalk are not food professionals. Anyone who implies that they aren't doing a great job because of that has declared war. I'll stack our cookbook reviewers against any in the business, and spot you a creme brulee (or should I say custard with melted sugar on top?) to boot.
Apparently, the reading world agrees. If you search for any of our reviewed titles (parameters "name of book review") you'll find that we consistently score higher than anyone else except Amazon.
I'd also suggest that if the same crew were doing restaurant reviews they would do just as superlative a job.