Earlier, I Twittered about eating samosas that I had frozen before last week's party. Normally, I actually do hate leftovers, even just the sound of it.
But I wondered if anyone had ever considered a left-over "party." Anyway. It was an innocent enough question, as I have tons of frozen appetizers that never saw the light of day in the freezer and even more bottles of wine waiting to be uncorked. With a big green salad and hearty glasses of pinot, it sounded like a half decent idea.
Well, apparently, the New York Times doesn't approve. But I think the story they chose to tell was kind of strange.
Here's an excerpt of today's "Even to Save Cash, Don't Try This Stuff at Home" :
( "Ramon Estrada has saver’s remorse, foodie style. Hoping to save on groceries and avoid costly restaurant meals about three months ago, he accepted almost two dozen steak and fish filets from someone who offered his family their uncooked party leftovers."
"The family ate some of the surf-and-turf on the spot. It tasted delicious, but about four hours later, 'I’m completely feeling horrible,' said Mr. Estrada, 27. 'Cramping stomach, the most horrible thing ever.'
Mr. Estrada’s brother had to be rushed to the emergency room. Mr. Estrada became so dehydrated that he also had to see a doctor a few days later, at the cost of at least $400 for drugs and treatment and four days of missed work.
'We learned something,' he said. 'Saving money wasn’t worth all of that.'' )
I feel for them. No one wants to get food poisoning, but really, New York Times ? A family who eats someone else's uncooked meat gets sick and we're supposed to learn...what, exactly? Not to take meat from strangers? It seems odd that they chose this kind of random story to tell when there are so many others about people trying to save money but not being successful - like when people buy food in bulk because they think it's cheap and then they end up never using it and throwing it out later. What do you think?
Full story here .
