by hilzoy
In response to Slarti's request: "Oh, mighty blog Deities, please grant us this day an open thread. Preferably one having a light, fluffy, humorous center."
Discuss.
« Heavens Roll Up Like Scroll! Seas Turn To Blood! Mountains Skip Like Rams, And Little Hills Like Lambs! | Main | Elsewhere in Islam »
The comments to this entry are closed.
All marshmallow-based foodstuffs are disgusting and should be illegal.
Posted by: Jackmormon | May 18, 2006 at 03:41 PM
Myabe the center is food-stuff based and is instead comprised of cute fluffy bunnies. They are certainly light and, at the very least, amusing. I propose a light fluffy bunny center. Possibly a puree.
Posted by: socratic_me | May 18, 2006 at 03:47 PM
Every candy made represents a diversion of funds from helping the poor, ill, starving, and war-wracked people of the world, and as such is clearly immoral. The amount of money spent on malomars alone would probably be sufficient to stop the Darfur crisis.
Posted by: rilkefan | May 18, 2006 at 03:48 PM
Mallomars are the treat of the Devil. Clearly in the evil column.
Posted by: spartikus | May 18, 2006 at 03:48 PM
and now for something completely different:
i have two very active 70+ lb. dogs, and a small backyard that doesn't get much sun in the winter. As a result, my perfect little patch of greenery is mostly bare mud.
i am thinking of installing some of that new generation of artificial turf (like Synlawn) instead of paving over the whole yard. Does anyone have any experience with dogs being happy with this stuff?
Posted by: Francis | May 18, 2006 at 03:49 PM
Mallomars, being made primarily of corn syrup, could be the key to all of our transportation-energy needs. Therefore: good.
Or possibly therefore: evil, depending on the consequences of releasing that much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
On the flipside of that, though, Mallomars, being chock-full of preservatives, could be a mode of carbon sequestration. So we're back to good, again.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 18, 2006 at 03:50 PM
(Aside to hilzoy - that's not a typo or misspelling in my comment above.)
Posted by: rilkefan | May 18, 2006 at 03:52 PM
Modern Mallomars -- evil; Good old days Mallomars -- good. Seriously, the Mallomars of my childhood were covered in luscious chocolate that would melt if you looked at it funny. Now they're covered in waxy stuff that doesn't taste like anything.
I am old and crochety.
Posted by: LizardBreath | May 18, 2006 at 03:53 PM
Francis, I'd get a bigger yard or smaller dogs.
And would YOU want to defecate on Astroturf? I didn't think so.
Jake
Posted by: Jake - but not the one | May 18, 2006 at 03:55 PM
Jake, what else is astroturf good for?
Posted by: rilkefan | May 18, 2006 at 03:55 PM
rilkefan: it">http://www.kraftfoods.com/recipes/Breads/SweetRolls/MALLOMARStickyBuns.html">it isn't?
Posted by: hilzoy | May 18, 2006 at 03:57 PM
hilzoy, pas de tout. J'aurais pensé, un mot a la savante...
Posted by: rilkefan | May 18, 2006 at 03:59 PM
nope
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 18, 2006 at 03:59 PM
Or is malomar where they have that cool telescope?
Posted by: hilzoy | May 18, 2006 at 03:59 PM
Jake:
bigger yard -- do you know the cost of housing in So.Cal?
smaller dogs -- take it up with them. neither has shown any interest in shrinking.
i'll keep my toilet habits to myself, thanks. but you won't catch me licking my butt or killing baby birds using my mouth only and dropping the corpse on my wife at midnight either.
Posted by: Francis | May 18, 2006 at 04:01 PM
All marshmallow-based foodstuffs are disgusting and should be illegal.
All marshmallow-based foodstuffs are disgusting, but it is necessary for the safety of the free world that people should be allowed their free choice to eat disgusting not-quite-food fluff.
And now for something completely different:
Posted by: Jesurgislac | May 18, 2006 at 04:01 PM
Won't shat-upon Astroturf get gross very quickly? Mulch -- wood chips or similar -- might work better.
Posted by: LizardBreath | May 18, 2006 at 04:06 PM
I thought rilkefan was just emphasizing the evil nature of the thing. Isn't a malomar the opposite of a benomar?
Posted by: KCinDC | May 18, 2006 at 04:12 PM
The dissected frog with great relief finally croaks.
Posted by: rilkefan | May 18, 2006 at 04:14 PM
Ah.
Ah.
Posted by: hilzoy | May 18, 2006 at 04:25 PM
Miromar is where they train top guns.
If you have an accident, landing in a gigantic pile of mallomars might be good.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 18, 2006 at 04:26 PM
Used to train, I should have said.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 18, 2006 at 04:27 PM
And here I thought Mallomar was a country in SE Asia.....
Posted by: lily | May 18, 2006 at 04:30 PM
And here I thought a Mallomar was an Arabic gentleman who frequented indoor shopping centers.
Posted by: kenB | May 18, 2006 at 04:35 PM
The military trains on a place named "Peace, Omar"?
Posted by: rilkefan | May 18, 2006 at 04:36 PM
err, Arab. Damn, I hate it when I botch a joke, even a stupid one.
Posted by: kenB | May 18, 2006 at 04:36 PM
"As a result, my perfect little patch of greenery is mostly bare mud."
Have the exact same problem, continually working on it. Laid fescue last year, the dogs killed it.
1) Walk dogs. Dogs prefer to excrete on other people's (and other dog's) territory.
Be good citizen, clean up after your dog, throw the little blue bag into the bushes. Just kidding.
2) Somebody recommended zoysia. I think. I may try that after I am thru with the ten pounds of fescue. I seed weekly, water constantly. And never ever mow. I am hoping the natural grasses and weeds are tougher than the dogs.
3) This is tough. Am involved with multiple municipal dog parks, and the experts plug, water daily and still can't keep a lawn. Dog urine is at least as destructive as poop.
4)Vastly prefer caramel or coconut centers. Like chewy instead of fluffy. Not sure what a Mallomar is, but I think I hate it.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | May 18, 2006 at 04:44 PM
"4)Vastly prefer caramel or coconut centers. Like chewy instead of fluffy. Not sure what a Mallomar is, but I think I hate it."
Words of pure truth no doubt falling on deaf ears like ... like a baby's tears falling on the sands of a desert.
Posted by: rilkefan | May 18, 2006 at 04:47 PM
I think the dropping dead birds on your wife at midnite might be a little too close to, what was that story? oh yeah, THE GODFATHER.
I don't think it would go over very well.
Not at all.
As for SoCal, there is a reason most of us don't live there, and it ain't the weather.
So, let me get this right, you chose the yard, you chose the dogs, and now you want to complain about the mud? It makes you sound like a republican, you know.
Next thing you know, you'll want a taller fence or the National Guard.
Jake
Posted by: Jake - but not the one | May 18, 2006 at 04:47 PM
I'm trying to be funny here, but real life can't be beat.
Posted by: rilkefan | May 18, 2006 at 04:51 PM
"As for SoCal, there is a reason most of us don't live there, and it ain't the weather."
There isn't room for most of us?
Posted by: rilkefan | May 18, 2006 at 04:52 PM
Here is an article
I saw two pieces of good advice here:water lightly several times a day, and a mulch or grass pile. I know my female dog loves them.
I am also trimming trees to get more sun, but the shaded house can mean $30-50 a month here in Texas.
Posted by: bob mcmanus | May 18, 2006 at 05:01 PM
"As for SoCal, there is a reason most of us don't live there, and it ain't the weather."
Because that's where my dad lives, and most of us want to be as far away from him as possible?
(Note to dad: if you ever happen to read this, it's a joke. Really. You know my wacky sense of humor.)
Posted by: kenB | May 18, 2006 at 05:21 PM
Mallomars=evil
Moon pies=unadulterated goodness
Don't forget the RC.
Posted by: liberal japonicus | May 18, 2006 at 05:31 PM
"Mallomars--good or evil?"
I cannot rationally will that everyone eat Mallomars, because there would not be enough to go round. Thus, I cannot eat a Mallomar.
Posted by: Anderson | May 18, 2006 at 05:43 PM
Also in the open-thread spirit, I share this gratuitous blog post o' mine:
Today on the interstate, we saw a Plymouth Quest with the license plate "GODGFT." We're not sure what's worse, that "GODGIFT" was already taken, or that someone thought "GODGFT" was an acceptable alternative.
Anyway, we were moved to add another verse to the Janis Joplin classic, "Mercedes Benz":
Posted by: Anderson | May 18, 2006 at 05:45 PM
Anderson: for some reason, I am reminded of a sign I once saw, on a miserable day in the driving rain:
DIVORCED? ABANDONED?
WE WILL BUY HIS GIFTS OF GOLD!
Posted by: hilzoy | May 18, 2006 at 05:50 PM
Marshmallows: demonstrably evil.
Posted by: st | May 18, 2006 at 06:12 PM
Since this is an open thread, I'd like to say that I have a new kitten and that she is the cutest kitten of all time.
Posted by: chuchundra | May 18, 2006 at 06:17 PM
If one is sitting around a campfire (which $DEITY knows, I've not done in decades, despite the temptations here; when I'm physically up to it, and find companions, I'd love to), toasting the marsh of the mallow is mandatory.
And timing is key.
Meanwhile I make do with grilling burgers on one of the two burners, and beating on Boy Scouts, whom I once was genuine fond of as a mere Second-Class Scout and Assistant Patrol Leader, rhetorically, for excluding pagans.
Marshmallows on sweet potatoes/yams still work on ocassion for me.
But JM objects to meat and fruit in the same meal, as I recall, and meat and sweets in general, so I call her on that. Sweets and meats have a long tradition, even outside sweet and sour pork!
(Not asking her around for tsimmis at Passover, I guess, not that she's asked to come by for a visit, mores the pity.)
I denounce Jackmormon for Midwestern blandness! Stone her! Stone her, but offer her sweet meats! Do it now!
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 18, 2006 at 06:29 PM
Um, note that "sweetmeats" means a hellova different thing.
Crazy Brits.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 18, 2006 at 06:30 PM
Rhymes with Orange cartoon from the other day:
Dog and cat walk by diner advertising
Next panel, the dog says to a waiter, "I'll have the Angel Meat, and she'll have the Hair Balls".
Posted by: rilkefan | May 18, 2006 at 06:38 PM
Jake: unlike Godfather, our little b*tch was very proudly showing us what she did. her message was love and affection, not give Frank Sinatra a contract.
unfortunately, she didn't want to eat it, and she didn't want to let it go either. pick it up, put it down, pick it up, put it down. etc.
Akitas, btw, have VERY VERY strong jaws.
as for the small yard / large dogs conundrum, i'd prefer to think that I was an idiot, not a republican, thank you very much. even in adversity i have standards.
bob: the Synlawn stuff has a sand bed, not a concrete bed. so i'm hoping that i can hose down the stuff i can't pick up.
Posted by: Francis | May 18, 2006 at 06:43 PM
An Akita ate my childhood dog.
Gary, it was a peach and lamb koresht I was kvetching about. Sweet, yes--blandly midwestern, no. I liked the pomegranate and duck koresht from the same recipe book! It is true that I've been known to opine on the intarwebs that ice cream and frosting, for example, are gross. Oh, and sugar in coffee and tea, and high-fructose corn syrup in anything, and white chocolate, and light chocolate.
Hm.
Posted by: Jackmormon | May 18, 2006 at 06:50 PM
Um, note that "sweetmeats" means a hellova different thing.
Crazy Brits.
I've always been bothered that sweetmeats are candy, sweetbreads are meat, and sweet breads are breads that are sweet.
And that inflammable and flammable mean the same thing.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | May 18, 2006 at 06:54 PM
What is koresht?
Tsimmis I know about, and Gary can have my portion.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov | May 18, 2006 at 07:29 PM
Koresht (or Koresh) basically means "stew" in Persian. Here's a recipe for the pomegranate and duck one I liked. The next time I cook Persian food, though, I'm going to halve the sugar content suggested by the recipe.
Posted by: Jackmormon | May 18, 2006 at 07:47 PM
Mondo Grass
Or Monkey Grass.
Posted by: DaveC | May 18, 2006 at 07:59 PM
I think you'll find that my opinions about Mallomars are well-considered (see my blog post, linked here) and supported by the best available evidence (see this link; this longitudinal study, linked here; this latitudinarian study; and these three charts). They are also expressed in even-tempered tones of sweet reason.
However, my feelings about people who arrive at the opposite viewpoint on the question of Mallomars are VEHEMENTLY POLEMICAL!
I am completely FED UP with the kind of NONSENSE that gets spread around--without ANY substantiation, either--by self-appointed experts who think they know SQUAT about Mallomars.
But I can't say I'm SURPRISED that people who would take that sort of view about Mallomars would stoop to relying on arguments like THOSE--or should I say "arguments"--given how fundamentally wrong-headed their motivations are. I think we all know what they're up to. I think it's pretty clear, isn't it?
Bahh! That's it. I am fed up with this entire discussion--I don't see why I waste my time trying to "debate" with people whose views on Mallomars are so viscerally loathesome. So long. I'm out of here. That's it.
Posted by: excitable | May 18, 2006 at 08:41 PM
Your link is broken.
Posted by: Jackmormon | May 18, 2006 at 08:46 PM
Do they serve Khorsesh in Waco?
:-P
Posted by: matttbastard | May 18, 2006 at 08:58 PM
...or 'Khoresh', even.
(I blame the typo on sugar shock from the mallomars.)
Posted by: matttbastard | May 18, 2006 at 08:59 PM
Or possibly therefore: evil, depending on the consequences of releasing that much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
No, no, Slarti - good! Haven't you seen the new advertisement from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, promoting the life-giving properties of carbon dioxide? The link to the ad comes after the 2nd paragraph.
Remember: "Carbon Dioxide: They call it pollution. We call it life."
Posted by: javelina | May 18, 2006 at 09:34 PM
Whoops, I see rilkefan scooped me hours ago (obeiscence in rilkefan's direction).
But remember: "Carbon Dioxide: They call it pollution. We call it life."
Posted by: javelina | May 18, 2006 at 09:37 PM
Shammai says, mallomars are kosher, yet they mix different substances and contain gelatin, thus misleading the unwary into thinking these things are generally permissible under the law. Also, they distract from the study of Torah. Therefore, bad.
But Hillel says, how do we know that they are good? Because it is written, I brought ye to a land of milk and honey. Milk, that is whey, and honey, that is corn syrup, together. For if they were not to be eaten together, it would have said only, I brought ye to a land of milk honey. The vov shows us that they are to be eaten together, and with graham cracker, in remembrance of the Temple.
Posted by: trilobite | May 18, 2006 at 10:10 PM
Aha! It didn't occur to me before, but mallomars are in fact a factory produced imitation of s'mores.
Posted by: ral | May 18, 2006 at 10:37 PM
The sadness of your sign, Hilzoy, is alleviated only by imagining the contemplation which went into its composition.
Posted by: Anderson | May 18, 2006 at 11:19 PM
ral: Aha! It didn't occur to me before, but mallomars are in fact a factory produced imitation of s'mores.
It never occurred to me before to go look up Mallomars on wiki, but I have just done so, and according to wiki, Mallomars are basically like Wagon Wheels:
Posted by: Jesurgislac | May 18, 2006 at 11:30 PM
I've never seen a Mallomar. I always thought they were only available in New York City.
What about Mallo Cups? Those are wonderful.
Posted by: Cryptic Ned | May 18, 2006 at 11:41 PM
Distressingly, I realize I quoted a guest reviewer on A Nice Cup of Tea and a Sit Down, not Nicey himself. What Nicey has to say about Wagon Wheels (do they sound like Mallomars to you, or ought wiki to edit that reference?)
Jackmormon: I've always been bothered that sweetmeats are candy, sweetbreads are meat, and sweet breads are breads that are sweet.
Also, mincemeat contains no meat, sweetbreads contain no bread, marshmallows contain no marsh mallows, and Eurocrats chose shortbread to represent the UK in Sweet Europe.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | May 18, 2006 at 11:46 PM
Ah, the French they are a funny race, they eat mallomars for breakfast, but not in Alsace.
Posted by: Jimbo | May 18, 2006 at 11:51 PM
Helas, Jes, that funny comment was by double-plus-ungood. Not that that excuses English cuisine, no, not by any extent...Or EU food standards, if you want to put it that way.
Posted by: Jackmormon | May 19, 2006 at 12:24 AM
Marshmallows used to be made from marsh mallows, though, back in Egyptian times (and I think the early modern ones too).
And I giggled like crazy when, on the Colbert Report, they put up a card that I insisted read "Moammar: Good Or Evil?"
Posted by: Anarch | May 19, 2006 at 02:02 AM
"Not that that excuses English cuisine, no, not by any extent..."
English cuisine of the last fifteen or twenty years is, in fact, generally fabulous.
Not even counting all the curries.
It's the reputation from the 1950s and 1960 and to some degree 1970s, that's hanging around past its sell-by date and spoiling the party, not actual English cooking for quite some time.
Though they may not have yet caught up on pizza, to be sure (hadn't when I was there in late nineties; but the quality of food was otherwise mostly all excellent, down to having a vastly better selection of stored sandwichs in average corner groceries than America has, and not to mention the superiority of an average Tescos to an average Safeway (though Whole Foods is good competition).
Plus, curries. And chains of French semi-fast food.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 19, 2006 at 06:51 AM
Photo of a tree. Caption: "I'm sucking life".
Hmmm...Koresht. Good and dead, or evil and dead?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 19, 2006 at 07:38 AM
I blame canned bread on the Brits. They might not have come up with it, but they very well could have, so I blame them.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 19, 2006 at 07:39 AM
Though they may not have yet caught up on pizza, to be sure ...
I understand that Glaswegians enjoy deep-fried pizza.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | May 19, 2006 at 09:35 AM
Well, if not England, New England. What's the diff?
Humorous article on canned bread here.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 19, 2006 at 09:40 AM
For some reason I can't post a comment on HoCH, so I'll post it here: jackmormom would like suggestions for conservative posters for this site. I suggest recruiting one or more of the guys from Outside the Beltway. Thye are pretty prolific and could easily spare a post or to for this site from their output of six or seven a day. Also they aren't doctrinaire, shrill, mean, or any of that and they post on all sorts of subjects.
Posted by: lily | May 19, 2006 at 10:02 AM
There was a TV commercial some years back, put on by the Grapefruit growers: stiff old guy looks at big dusty book and says something along the line that the rules clearly state that grapefruit is to be eaten at breakfast, with a spoon. The point of the ad was to claim that this rule no longer applies. I doubt it was successful, because, that was in fact the rule, and I'm here to tell you, it does still apply.
The rule, from the big book, on the marshmallow is as follows: marshmallows shall be eaten outside, after dark, from a stick, lightly roasted over an open fire. The fire may not be fueled by natural gas or charcoal. Chocolate may be added by persons between the ages of 6 and 15, who are members of formally constituted groups (eg Girl Scouts) but only during formal gatherings of such groups.
Anything else is a sin. The mallomar is therefore evil.
I grew up eating B&M and cream cheese sandiches. Not every day, of course, but often enough. I'm certainly not going to take any guff about from anyone who thinks a mallomar might be 'good.'
Posted by: CharleyCarp | May 19, 2006 at 10:08 AM
Dogs' yard: bales of straw, strewn liberally.
Posted by: susabelle | May 19, 2006 at 10:35 AM
Lily:
HOCB has enabled a "blogger must approve all comments" feature before the comment can be posted.
I'm waiting for one to be posted, too.
Maybe that is what happened to yours.
Though if DaveC. is now the comment moderator, methinks I'll need to change my entire personality and go deep cover. ;)
Posted by: John Thullen | May 19, 2006 at 11:31 AM
I understand that Glaswegians enjoy deep-fried pizza.
Not just Glaswegians. It's a Scottish thing.
(When pizza first arrived in the UK, it was mostly available pre-made and frozen. You were meant to re-heat it in an oven. But in Scotland, fast food is inevitably deep-fried. Frozen pizza is fast food, and what Scots thought ought to be done with it was drop it, frozen, in a hot-fat fryer, and let it defrost and fry at the same time. The defrosting bread soaked up the hot oil, and the resultant dish is soggy with fat and oddly crisp and flavoured with whatever fish or meat has been fried in the oil before it, plus a faint lingering flavor of tomato and cheese. You don't want to know how I know this.)
Deep-fried Mars bars, however, are a joke on tourists.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | May 19, 2006 at 11:41 AM
Wait, HoCB has enabled what? Whoops.
[Disappears into the template.]
Posted by: Jackmormon | May 19, 2006 at 12:07 PM
Sorry, everyone: I misunderstood what "comment moderation" actually means in Blogger. Your old comments have been sent to a blank email field, which means, I think, that they're gone. Would somebody (without posting privileges) try to leave a comment there now, so I can be sure I turned the feature off correctly?
Posted by: Jackmormon | May 19, 2006 at 12:14 PM
I got in a line at Chipolte's and mused about queueing.
Posted by: delveg | May 19, 2006 at 12:17 PM
Just one word:
scooter-pies.
Posted by: burry's | May 19, 2006 at 12:40 PM
I suggest recruiting one or more of the guys from Outside the Beltway. Thye are pretty prolific and could easily spare a post or to for this site from their output of six or seven a day. Also they aren't doctrinaire, shrill, mean, or any of that and they post on all sorts of subjects.
Steve Verdon would be good. Joyner can be a bit of a tool; I quit being a regular over there after he endorsed some lie of Hugh Hewitt's or somesuch. Tho I did see Lily's comments apropos of the Seattle public schools' ... expansive definition of cultural racism.
OTB's commenters, however, include some of the most frightening paleolithics out there, the kind of people you think shouldn't even be allowed to vote.
Posted by: Anderson | May 19, 2006 at 12:48 PM
Not just Glaswegians. It's a Scottish thing.
If it's not Glaswegian, it's crap.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | May 19, 2006 at 12:57 PM
Oops, what I meant to say was :
Jes: Not just Glaswegians. It's a Scottish thing.
If it's not Glaswegian, it's crap.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | May 19, 2006 at 12:59 PM
I think I recommended Steve way back when OW was looking for a conservative writer. Of course, Steve would drive me absolutely up a tree because he can't spell to save his life, but he's pretty good otherwise.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | May 19, 2006 at 01:07 PM
"HOCB has enabled a "blogger must approve all comments" feature before the comment can be posted.
I'm waiting for one to be posted, too."
I've given up waiting. None of my comments post.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 19, 2006 at 02:03 PM
Gary: They are now.
I thought it was just me. Maybe it's just you.
;)
Posted by: John Thullen | May 19, 2006 at 02:13 PM
Gary, see here.
Posted by: Jackmormon | May 19, 2006 at 02:15 PM
"Gary, see here."
I'm pretty unsure how one link on ObWi to another on ObWi says something about anothr blog.
Baffled, actually. WTF?
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 19, 2006 at 02:38 PM
In short, I have immense faith in Jackmormon.
But I don't yet know how to make sense of the crap yet offered. Not a one of the explanations yet makes any sense.
I'm utterly and conviningly of the belief that JM is honest and truthful and honorable.
But she's not making much sense, so far.
I expect that's due to some sort of problem she's having with software.
I hope she fixes it soon.
I sent e-mails. Repeating links to prior comments here is, well, what does one expect of shouting louder and repeating?
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 19, 2006 at 02:47 PM
Here's what the above link said, Gary:
I screwed up. I think it's working fine now, as a number of people unaffiliated with the site have now been able to comment.Posted by: Jackmormon | May 19, 2006 at 02:52 PM
And checking out the site, my coments still have been eliminated. I discussed a certain New York Review of Books article.
When someone wants to discuss that with me, after seeing the non-censored article, cool.
Until then, well, let me know when I can post there, and hear back responses to what I wrote.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 19, 2006 at 02:55 PM
"I screwed up. I think it's working fine now, as a number of people unaffiliated with the site have now been able to comment."
Okay, I belive you're acting in good faith, of course.
I don't get why various other folks had comments posted, though, after mine.
And I don't get why you... okay, I'll ease up on that.
Okay, now I'll reload, taking far longer then it ever takes to look at my blog, as I do a jillion times a day. Since this is an imcomplete page, as ever.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 19, 2006 at 03:06 PM
d-p-u-g: If it's not Glaswegian, it's crap.
Yes.
The Scots have a very inclusive and eclectic approach to international cuisine. (Possibly this goes along with their inclusive and eclectic approach to international football.) If it can be fried in a deep fat frier, the Scots will eat it.
Unfortunately, if it can't be deep-fried, the Scots will dip it in batter and do so anyway.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | May 19, 2006 at 03:58 PM
Unfortunately, if it can't be deep-fried, the Scots will dip it in batter and do so anyway.
Huge amounts of sugar seem to be a reasonable substitute for frying in Scottish cuisine. My Granny's tablet was so sweet it burned going down, and two piece would cause blindness and convulsions.
Sigh.
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | May 19, 2006 at 04:29 PM
Hey, but I recently read that organic twinkies are on the way. mmmmm.... fried orangic twinkies..... (puke)...
Posted by: A | May 19, 2006 at 05:36 PM
If it's not Glaswegian, it's crap.
Wow, and I thought Hume's Razor was the ultimate in Scottish library-clearing principles:
If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
But now I can simply ask, "Is it Glaswegian?" Allowing me to discard, inter alia, Hume.
Posted by: Anderson | May 19, 2006 at 05:48 PM
Allowing me to discard, inter alia, Hume.
Well, Hume was from Edinburgh...
Posted by: double-plus-ungood | May 19, 2006 at 06:36 PM
My (late) Northern-Irish brother-in-law used to make us white bread, baked in heaps of butter...
There are things I like in British cookery, but also things I hate. The amount of cream used for normal cooking is abysmall (or maybe that is just my family-in-law)
Posted by: dutchmarbel | May 19, 2006 at 07:51 PM
"There are things I like in British cookery, but also things I hate. The amount of cream used for normal cooking is abysmall (or maybe that is just my family-in-law)"
Judging British cooking by a cook in your family doesn't seem the best method, yes.
Generally sampling British restaurants might be a better method.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 19, 2006 at 08:36 PM
Everything *they* order is rather creamy too :)
And my family-in-law >1
Posted by: dutchmarbel | May 19, 2006 at 08:59 PM
I probably should note that matters on I Hate Charles Bird have been cleared up.
It's a shame my words to the world on former topics have been ever lost. I expect worldwide weeping and tribulation, and a great amount of flagelation on the parties responsible. Repentence is due, as is humiliation and worship of my toes.
Okay, maybe not. I have better parts, as it happens.
But I do like lots of creamy stuff, not that it helps my desire to lose weight, which has become rather urgent of late.
Posted by: Gary Farber | May 19, 2006 at 09:37 PM
Gary: drinking two liters of water per day and eating 300 grams of vegetables a day is a good start for most people... as is replacing cream with cottagecheese in most recepies.
I am a weightwatch fan - I lost over 70 pounds lbs the last 14 months (gained in pregnancy, pregnancy had a rotten effect on my thyroid gland).
Posted by: dutchmarbel | May 20, 2006 at 05:27 AM
100
Posted by: cleek | May 20, 2006 at 02:45 PM