Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

So based on the recent slew of taco related questions, most of which have been answered rather poorly (sorry guys, it looks like you need some brown blood to come in and answer this) I've decided to give a few answers.

I'm talking about questions 58670, 58669, 58668, for reference.

First, I think the problem with looking for "authentic" tacos Arabes is that they are inherently not authentic. They are based on a combination of Mexican and Middle Eastern food brought over by immigrants to Mexico around the 1920's. Some have changed the sauce to be chipotle based, some serve with tortillas and some serve with pitas, some serve meats like lamb that aren't really found in Mexican food, some change the meat to be a bit more Mexican. That being said, if you'd like some, I'd suggest going where there have been influxes of Middle Eastern immigrants to Mexico, Puebla for example, or where these immigrants have since gone, Houston, Dallas, Los Angeles, and a few other places.

Contrary to opinion, tacos Al Pastor are not the same thing, and they share only some roots with tacos Arabes. They are much closer to what I would call "authentic". The meat is almost exclusively pork, and the sauces are usually chipotle based, with additions of pineapple, cilantro and onion frequently added. If you want tacos al Pastor, you can go to just about any Mexican restaurant and find them. I don't know about al Pastor specifically, since it is not my favorite (I usually lean to lengua, cabeza, or cesos, or occasionally tripa) but El Azteca and Taco Riendo both have very good tacos, and I imagine would do justice to tacos al pastor.

Anyway, hopefully whoever asked those questions finds this post. Did I miss anything?

Since you seem to have some authority on the matter (more than I, anyhow), I'd say this is the kind of thing that qualifies as a useful comment submission. Be the first one of your friends to use the new commenting system!

Sorry, I would, but I've sworn off commenting. I've tried six times, and every time been rejected. So every time I'd comment, I instead come here, where they don't reject my comments. Were I to post the comment that I have up above, I'm certain it would be rejected as well.

Hum. Well, seeing as we really did scrape the bottom of the barrel with our answers, I'm pretty sure they'd be approved. In fact, I'm certain they would be. Because I would approve them.

Tacos al pastor son infinitamente mejor que los tacos arabes. Thus quoth my Spanish nombre maternal and years of the food that goes with it.

I wish I had various tacos right now.

He submitted it! Quick, summarily reject it! That'll show 'im.

(Just playin'.)

NerdGirl wrote:I wish I had various tacos right now.

Yeah, that sounds great. I'm going to go get various tacos in a few minutes...

Marduk wrote:Sorry, I would, but I've sworn off commenting. I've tried six times, and every time been rejected. So every time I'd comment, I instead come here, where they don't reject my comments. Were I to post the comment that I have up above, I'm certain it would be rejected as well.

A hint: Board 5.0 now supports commenting on posts directly. Comments should not be submitted as if they were questions any longer.

you like lengua?!?! ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. i am now judging you for liking lengua. i much prefer pastor or barbacoa (mmmmmm...)

First, Imogen, lengua is awesome. Just gotta get over WHAT you're eating, and taste it for what it is, then you'll realize it is soft, juicy, and all around delicious.

Second, submitted the comment, and it was rejected based on that technicality. I'm not going through all the effort again; commenting on the 100 hour board really is a futile endeavor.

I agree with Marduk about lengua. It really is quite delicious once you get past what it is you're eating. Same concept as sushi.

Check your FB message inbox, Mr. Marduk. My apologies. I'm trying to figure it out.

no. lengua does not taste good. it's...blech....

the pastor tacos i just ate were pretty awesome though. with onion, cilantro, and lime...mmmmmmm. i had a craving.

Marduk wrote:Second, submitted the comment, and it was rejected based on that technicality. I'm not going through all the effort again; commenting on the 100 hour board really is a futile endeavor.

Everyone's still figuring out some of the changes that happened with 5.0. I hope you can work with us and not give up just because things are still a little bumpy. Writing us off that easily seems kind of unfair.

However, if you don't want to comment, that's your prerogative.

Laser Jock wrote:

Marduk wrote:Second, submitted the comment, and it was rejected based on that technicality. I'm not going through all the effort again; commenting on the 100 hour board really is a futile endeavor.

Everyone's still figuring out some of the changes that happened with 5.0. I hope you can work with us and not give up just because things are still a little bumpy. Writing us off that easily seems kind of unfair.

However, if you don't want to comment, that's your prerogative.

Yeah...no offense, but I'm not sure it's worth getting upset about it being rejected because it was submitted incorrectly. Granted, it's a new system and some of our long-time readers will have to adapt to some changes--you still have our assurances of its approval if it's done properly, so I don't see our pickiness being the real issue.

No, you're right, but it isn't just about one persnickety rejection. It is about it being the seventh, and every time it has been for one little technicality or another. I'm all for working within the system, but when one little thing is wrong seven different times, it really isn't worth bothering anymore.

Foreman wrote:

Laser Jock wrote:

Marduk wrote:Second, submitted the comment, and it was rejected based on that technicality. I'm not going through all the effort again; commenting on the 100 hour board really is a futile endeavor.

Everyone's still figuring out some of the changes that happened with 5.0. I hope you can work with us and not give up just because things are still a little bumpy. Writing us off that easily seems kind of unfair.

However, if you don't want to comment, that's your prerogative.

Yeah...no offense, but I'm not sure it's worth getting upset about it being rejected because it was submitted incorrectly. Granted, it's a new system and some of our long-time readers will have to adapt to some changes--you still have our assurances of its approval if it's done properly, so I don't see our pickiness being the real issue.

I see the point of this, but it does seem a bit like Lucy promising Charlie Brown faithfully that she won't pull the football away this time. (Put another way, I don't doubt that the Board editors are treating submissions consistently and fairly, but it does seem that Marduk has had a run of bad luck in the matter.)

Clearly the only solution is to hire Marduk as a writer. What's the hang-up? That you're not a current student? Independent study? Or you can do what I did - marry a current student and then apply as a team.

Marduk, thought you should know that the original asker spotted your comment anyway. Seems we have some boardboard lurkers.

C is for wrote:Marduk, thought you should know that the original asker spotted your comment anyway. Seems we have some boardboard lurkers.

Oh really? How have you come by this information?