Suppose I told you that I’d pay you five bucks to eat a hot dog, Chicago-style.
This is what it would look like, exact.
You, to get the five bucks, must eat it all yourself and you’re not allowed to take ANYTHING off of it (that is currently on it…however you may add other things if you like).
Based on your opinion, which of the following choices in the poll would you say your answer would be closest to?
If it were a poll of HOW MANY hot dogs would you eat if paid $5 each, then I guess I’d only eat about three or four. At that point the health drawbacks would outweigh the money.
I never understood the fascination of “Chicago-style” hotdog decorations. First, it’s the same vanilla stuff you put on a hamburger or any other sandwich. Second, of course you want to decorate it. You don’t want to taste the hotdog, do you?
Yes, because $5 is $5. But intentionally putting tomatoes things that don’t need them makes me wonder if existence of the Chicago winter is not an accident.
I don’t understand how that’s different from just a “hot dog” - is it because there’s no ketchup? No relish? It looks like an ordinary hot dog to me, I will love it - I think I’ll add some chutney, though.
All of it looks rather yummy, although there might be a little too much mustard on it. And I’d probably add a little mayo. So I guess the closest is the #3 answer, even though I would need a gluten-free bun.
Now, if it only cost $5 with said bun, I’d pay for it.
I’d eat one. Not my style of dog. I don’t think tomatoes belong on a hot dog except in the form of ketchup. But I wouldn’t be repulsed by it, either. I’d eat them as long as you kept those $5 bills coming.
Not for me, but that’s purely a function of me assuming the hot dog is traditional and contains nitrates, which I cannot eat. Make it a vegetarian hot dog or a sausage without the nitrates, and sure, I’ll eat it. No idea if I’ll like it or not, but it looks fine.