YES! We have reached our target donation level... let's go to the Big Board!
Progress Indicator (works best in monospaced font)
---> |$100.50| |$100.00| African elephants flash-frozen, Dr. Hyde goes to movie! |XXXXXXX| | 90.00| Massive storm surges threaten major cities. |XXXXXXX| | 80.00| Unprecedented animal migrations with no apparent purpose. |XXXXXXX| | 70.00| (Classified.) |XXXXXXX| | 60.00| > 50% of netloon theories cite strange weather as "proof!" |XXXXXXX| | 50.00| Natural tans in England up 30% |XXXXXXX| | 40.00| Odd unseasonal cold snaps worldwide |XXXXXXX| | 30.00| Odd unseasonal heat waves worldwide. |XXXXXXX| | 20.00| Ice caps begin to shrink. |XXXXXXX| | 10.00| Ominous variations in ocean currents. |XXXXXXX|
We are officially at 100.5% of our goal with the latest contribution! Dr. Hyde, your destiny awaits. I have sent you under separate cover a formal offer to accept US$100.00 to attend a full screening of "The Day After Tomorrow." Please print it out and send it back to me as the cover letter indicates. Everybody else, thank you! (If somebody wants, as I said, to PayPal me a few bucks to cover costs, I would still appreciate it, but this will be our last update.)
For those of you who'd like to participate, just PayPal your contribution to drea...@dreamstrike.com . If you'd like to send a check, money order, or cash, you are welcome to do so: just drop me an email and I will give you a mailing address.
I'd like to remind everybody that *all* donations *will* be returned if we don't get the payment to Dr. Hyde in time to see the movie in theaters. (A poster has already identified a theater near him which is still showing it.) However, if that happens, those who wish to leave their donations in the fund may do so and we will buy him a Director's Cut Widescreen DVD of the film.
D
-><- Non curo. Si metrum non habet, non est poema.
You can't make an omlet without aborting a few chickens.[1] It's for Science!
Hey, he *had* his chance - could've said "I was just kidding" at any time. He signed the paper. Who are we to tell him his life and sanity aren't his to risk?
D
[1] I know that chicken eggs aren't necessarily fertile, but this phrasing is a bit grimmer than the standard one and, frankly, this is a grim business.
>You can't make an omlet without aborting a few chickens.[1] It's for >Science!
>Hey, he *had* his chance - could've said "I was just kidding" at any time. >He signed the paper. Who are we to tell him his life and sanity aren't his >to risk?
ObSF: "It's neither your business, nor that of this damn' paternalistic government, to tell a man not to risk his life doing what he wants to do."
-- Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
In article <ZiCAc.16229$Y3.10...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "Dreamer" <drea...@dreamstrike.com> said:
> You can't make an omlet without aborting a few chickens.[1] It's > for Science! > [1] I know that chicken eggs aren't necessarily fertile, but this > phrasing is a bit grimmer than the standard one and, frankly, this > is a grim business.
Was it was Terry Pratchett character -- or Pterry himself -- who once cut straight to the chase by saying "You can't make an omelet without killing a few people?"
> In article <ZiCAc.16229$Y3.10...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, > "Dreamer" <drea...@dreamstrike.com> said:
>> You can't make an omlet without aborting a few chickens.[1] It's >> for Science!
Saying "It's for Science!" reminds me of the chap in _Illuminatus_ with a sign saying "Science, pure science, and damn the first to cry 'Hold, too much'" on the lab wall.
William December Starr wrote: >>You can't make an omlet without aborting a few chickens.[1] It's >>for Science! >>[1] I know that chicken eggs aren't necessarily fertile, but this >>phrasing is a bit grimmer than the standard one and, frankly, this >>is a grim business. > Was it a Terry Pratchett character -- or Pterry himself -- who once > cut straight to the chase by saying "You can't make an omelet without > killing a few people?"
(Y'know, sometimes you make it so EASY to treat you like a galaxy-class criminal mastermind whose brainwipe is wearing off.)
Anyway, the corollary to that axiom is that you can ruin a fuckload of eggs without getting anything even *close* to an omelet.
Danny Sichel <dsic...@canada.com> wrote: >William December Starr wrote:
>>>You can't make an omlet without aborting a few chickens.[1] It's >>>for Science!
>>>[1] I know that chicken eggs aren't necessarily fertile, but this >>>phrasing is a bit grimmer than the standard one and, frankly, this >>>is a grim business.
>> Was it a Terry Pratchett character -- or Pterry himself -- who once >> cut straight to the chase by saying "You can't make an omelet without >> killing a few people?"
>(Y'know, sometimes you make it so EASY to treat you like a galaxy-class >criminal mastermind whose brainwipe is wearing off.)
>Anyway, the corollary to that axiom is that you can ruin a fuckload of >eggs without getting anything even *close* to an omelet.
Just a note: It was Neil Gaiman, not Terry Pratchett.
In article <2f8hd0p0ckvj4r2kpc9cu93cbf505kq...@4ax.com>, David Bilek <dtbi...@comcast.net> said:
>>> Was it a Terry Pratchett character -- or Pterry himself -- who >>> once cut straight to the chase by saying "You can't make an >>> omelet without killing a few people?" [wdstarr] > Just a note: It was Neil Gaiman, not Terry Pratchett.
Thanks. Was it one of his characters, or Gaiman speaking in his own voice?
In article <cbg7hs$np...@panix3.panix.com>, wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote:
> In article <2f8hd0p0ckvj4r2kpc9cu93cbf505kq...@4ax.com>, > David Bilek <dtbi...@comcast.net> said:
> >>> Was it a Terry Pratchett character -- or Pterry himself -- who > >>> once cut straight to the chase by saying "You can't make an > >>> omelet without killing a few people?" [wdstarr]
> > Just a note: It was Neil Gaiman, not Terry Pratchett.
> Thanks. Was it one of his characters, or Gaiman speaking in his own > voice?
A Google search reveals that it was Croup, a not very pleasant character from Neverwhere.
David Eppstein <eppst...@ics.uci.edu> wrote: > In article <cbg7hs$np...@panix3.panix.com>, > wdst...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote: > > In article <2f8hd0p0ckvj4r2kpc9cu93cbf505kq...@4ax.com>, > > David Bilek <dtbi...@comcast.net> said:
> > >>> Was it a Terry Pratchett character -- or Pterry himself -- who > > >>> once cut straight to the chase by saying "You can't make an > > >>> omelet without killing a few people?" [wdstarr]
> > > Just a note: It was Neil Gaiman, not Terry Pratchett.
> > Thanks. Was it one of his characters, or Gaiman speaking in his own > > voice?
> A Google search reveals that it was Croup, a not very pleasant character > from Neverwhere.
ObSF: Stross's _The Atrocity Archive_ which contains a subplot with a minor character trying literally to create an omelet without breaking an egg.
Scott Beeler wrote: > ObSF: Stross's _The Atrocity Archive_ which contains a subplot with a > minor character trying literally to create an omelet without breaking > an egg.
Well, depending on what you mean by "break", *I* could do that, and so could most other people with mothers who made cakes rather than egg salad at Easter.
> ObSF: Stross's _The Atrocity Archive_ which contains a subplot with a > minor character trying literally to create an omelet without breaking > an egg.
Piece of cake. Later, you can do assorted crafts, or tricks, with the still (almost) whole eggshells.
Kate Secor <aig...@nospam.pdti.net> wrote: > Scott Beeler wrote:
> > ObSF: Stross's _The Atrocity Archive_ which contains a subplot with a > > minor character trying literally to create an omelet without breaking > > an egg.
> Well, depending on what you mean by "break", *I* could do that, and so > could most other people with mothers who made cakes rather than egg > salad at Easter.
Leaving completely intact the eggshell, no holes, cracks, etc at all. And the insides whisked/cooked omelet-style, then to be cracked open ready-to-eat. (No additional ingredients introduced, which would be more complicated.)
Scott Beeler wrote: > Kate Secor <aig...@nospam.pdti.net> wrote:
>>Scott Beeler wrote:
>>>ObSF: Stross's _The Atrocity Archive_ which contains a subplot with a >>>minor character trying literally to create an omelet without breaking >>>an egg.
>>Well, depending on what you mean by "break", *I* could do that, and so >>could most other people with mothers who made cakes rather than egg >>salad at Easter.
> Leaving completely intact the eggshell, no holes, cracks, etc at all. > And the insides whisked/cooked omelet-style, then to be cracked open > ready-to-eat. (No additional ingredients introduced, which would be > more complicated.)
Ah, no, that is more complicated. (My way involves putting two holes in the shell, although not cracking it otherwise.)
I wonder if you could do that by shaking the egg violently while boiling it?
> Leaving completely intact the eggshell, no holes, cracks, etc at all. > And the insides whisked/cooked omelet-style, then to be cracked open > ready-to-eat. (No additional ingredients introduced, which would be > more complicated.)
Dr. McCoy provides the biochemical information on omelet cooking, Spock creates the theory, and Scotty does the actual engineering, by which they put an egg in the transporter and it comes out as an intact egg shell and a cooked omelet.
scottbee...@cox.net (Scott Beeler) writes: >Kate Secor <aig...@nospam.pdti.net> wrote: >> Scott Beeler wrote: >> > ObSF: Stross's _The Atrocity Archive_ which contains a subplot with a >> > minor character trying literally to create an omelet without breaking >> > an egg. >> Well, depending on what you mean by "break", *I* could do that, and so >> could most other people with mothers who made cakes rather than egg >> salad at Easter. >Leaving completely intact the eggshell, no holes, cracks, etc at all. >And the insides whisked/cooked omelet-style, then to be cracked open >ready-to-eat. (No additional ingredients introduced, which would be >more complicated.)
Reminds me of a product we used to refer to in college, the Amazing Ronco In-The-Shell Egg Scrambler and Home Lobotomy Kit.
It's possible the in-the-shell egg scrambler was a real device, although I don't know for sure... I know that we all envisioned it as a small bent wire attached to a motor; you'd make a pinhole in the egg shell (so I guess it wouldn't meet Scott's criteria) introduce the wire, and turn on the motor. The home lobotomy application seemed to be an obvious extension.
-- ================== http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~teneyck ================== Ross TenEyck Seattle, WA \ Light, kindled in the furnace of hydrogen; tene...@alumni.caltech.edu \ like smoke, sunlight carries the hot-metal Are wa yume? Soretomo maboroshi? \ tang of Creation's forge.
> I wonder if you could do that by shaking the egg violently while boiling it?
I've made "in-shell scramble" exactly that way. Take egg, snap shake it a few dozen times to break and mix the yolk and white (it's all in the wrist), then boil as usual.
It's... interesting. Sort of a cross between scrambled and boiled egg.
You still have to break the shell to eat it, of course.
If you chew well and have a LOT of roughage in your system, you can eat boiled eggs *with* their shell.
>>>Well, depending on what you mean by "break", *I* could do that, and so >>>could most other people with mothers who made cakes rather than egg >>>salad at Easter.
>> Leaving completely intact the eggshell, no holes, cracks, etc at all. >> And the insides whisked/cooked omelet-style, then to be cracked open >> ready-to-eat. (No additional ingredients introduced, which would be >> more complicated.)
>Ah, no, that is more complicated. (My way involves putting two holes in >the shell, although not cracking it otherwise.)
>I wonder if you could do that by shaking the egg violently while boiling it?
You can certainly cook an egg that way. Whether you can call it an "omelet" or not with a straight face is another question entirely.
> Leaving completely intact the eggshell, no holes, cracks, etc at all. > And the insides whisked/cooked omelet-style, then to be cracked open > ready-to-eat.
Um, that wouldn't fit my definition of "omlet" in several dimensions, though.
Omlets are flat, folded, and 'fluffy' to some extent. (or perhaps very fluffy and not folder or flat, but our particular "fluffy omlet" is more like a cheating souflet.) There's not enough air in an egg, nor room for enough air, to get the texture necessary for an omlet. IMO, of course.
On 26 Jun 2004 23:21:18 -0700, Bill Westfield <bi...@cypher.cisco.com> wrote:
>>> create an omelet without breaking an egg.
>> Leaving completely intact the eggshell, no holes, cracks, etc at all. >> And the insides whisked/cooked omelet-style, then to be cracked open >> ready-to-eat.
>Um, that wouldn't fit my definition of "omlet" in several dimensions, though.
>Omlets are flat, folded, and 'fluffy' to some extent. (or perhaps very >fluffy and not folder or flat, but our particular "fluffy omlet" is more >like a cheating souflet.) There's not enough air in an egg, nor room for >enough air, to get the texture necessary for an omlet. IMO, of course.
And IMHO, if you're not going to add the extra ingredients (onion, ham, bell pepper, cheese, etc), you might as well just make scrambled eggs: lot less hassle.
