Lenon and McCartney are old technology
Zebrowski
It looks like Lister's goldfish were developed back in the old barbaric 21st
Century, according to the above advertisment. Fish using artificial muscles
are selling for some 16,000 Yen a pop in Japan and can probably be shipped
overseas for an extra charge.
Sadly, they do not appear to have developed a working goldfish model, yet.
That could be what they'll be working on for the next two hundred years.
Mat.
Hercule Platini
"Zebrowski" <mzebr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:_QAfb.14257$9l5.704@pd7tw2no...
Good to see the march of technology pushing back the frontiers of progress
and making life better for retailers of pocket-sized aquatic machinery. I
mean, haven't scientists got anything better to do?
In the UK there has recently been a research project into....what? Cancer?
Multiple sclerosis? Alzheimer's? No such age-old mystery as the meaning of
life, the existence of God, the purpose of the Universe or whether Status
Quo will ever lean a fourth chord. Rather, this project (incidentally
publicly funded) has sought to tackle the knotty and thorny problem of why
you get broken biscuits and what can be done to rid the Earth of this plague
on our civilisation and assault on our human rights.
Also - and I am NOT making this up - a report, again funded out of public
money, though this time Australian. I think the title gives it away: "An
Analysis of the Forces Required to Drag Sheep over Various Surfaces."
That's not a scientific investigation, that's a lifestyle choice. Could you
honestly approach the financial offices with a proposal to purchase half a
dozen sheep, some rope and a Transit van in order to try and find out how
hard it is to drag a sheep across tarmac, wet sand, granite or frosty
undergrowth? Was the sheep alive or dead? Did they try dragging the sheep
over velcro? Or damp rubber? Is it going to bring down the price of wool
in the next few years? Are they going to do comparitive studies with horses
and chickens? How hard is it to drag a haddock over the Western Desert, and
will it cost the taxpayer thirty grand in research grants to find out?
--
Captain Hercule "Ron" Platini
Ningy nongy nob nob neeble narble noo.
Nub nub nibberty nob narby nibberty neeb.
Peter Chant
"Hercule Platini" <ningy...@nobnob.com> writes:
>
> In the UK there has recently been a research project into....what? Cancer?
> Multiple sclerosis? Alzheimer's? No such age-old mystery as the meaning of
> life, the existence of God, the purpose of the Universe or whether Status
> Quo will ever lean a fourth chord. Rather, this project (incidentally
> publicly funded) has sought to tackle the knotty and thorny problem of why
> you get broken biscuits and what can be done to rid the Earth of this plague
> on our civilisation and assault on our human rights.
>
Was it public funding or was it funded my Huntley and Palmer, McVitties
or United Biscuits?
--
pe...@petezilla.co.uk
http://www.petezilla.co.uk
This week my favourite punctuation symbol is '-'
Col
"Peter Chant" <pe...@petezilla.co.uk> wrote in message
news:blnnav$1cb$4...@phoenix.fire...
> In article <blnh7n$fji$2...@titan.btinternet.com>,
> >
>
> Was it public funding or was it funded my Huntley and Palmer, McVitties
> or United Biscuits?
Somebody in another ng was whinging about this, but it turns out that
the research was funded by the buscuit company.
In which case they are perfectly at liberty to spend their money on
whatever they wish.
Col
--
I need a new sig
Angof
I think you'll find they're crackers.
Angof
Angof
Zebrowski
"Angof" <oan1v...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:blp466$egued$1...@ID-78362.news.uni-berlin.de...
Of course they are, they're spending hundreds of thousands on broken
biscuits.
Tim
> I think you'll find they're crackers.
I think you'll find the only honourable thing to do now is to find a stasis
chamber, and lock yourself in it for about 3 million years. On your return
to the outside world, you "may" have been forgiven for that joke.........
Tim (ROTFCMEO)
Angof
Blimey...their tough on corn and tough on the causes of corn around here.
Angof
Angof
Did I say their? They're you fool.
Angof
g2k
... or maybe by then it'll be funny ?
Garth - I dunno.
Col
"g2k" <gar...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:85fa921a.03100...@posting.google.com...
Maybe even The Cat Dance will be funny be then?
>
> Garth - I dunno.
Col - Indeed.
Frank Winans
> > Tim wrote:
> >> Ange wrote:
> >>
> >>> I think you'll find they're crackers.
> >>
> >> I think you'll find the only honourable thing to do now is to find a
> >> stasis chamber, and lock yourself in it for about 3 million years. On
> >> your return to the outside world, you "may" have been forgiven for
> >> that joke.........
> >>
> >>
> >> Tim (ROTFCMEO)
> >
> > here.
> >
> Angof
And then they go "wibble, wibble" at ya!.
g2k
> "Angof" wrote
> > Blimey...they're tough on corn and tough on the causes of corn around
> > here.
They do? and more to the point, who's they?
Garth
Hercule Platini
"Col" <Reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:bloj3n$e4pne$1...@ID-120826.news.uni-berlin.de...
Ah. Well, you see, the thing is, old fruit, that the biscuit companies are
funded by us, the public, because we buy their biscuits, so technically they
are publically funded....
Or I was misinformed.
Hercule Platini
Do you have a wibble fetish or something?
Hercule Platini
The Norweb Federation.
Hercule Platini
Biscuits cause corns? I haven't seen any health warnings on them. When did
you last pick up the Crunch Creams (yummy) and see "Warning: Consumption of
the contents of this packet may cause painful growths on your feet"? Do
onions cause bunions? What do I have to do to not get chilblains? What
will happen if I eat the last tunnocks in the box?
Brett
> Also - and I am NOT making this up - a report, again funded out of public
> money, though this time Australian. I think the title gives it away: "An
> Analysis of the Forces Required to Drag Sheep over Various Surfaces."
> That's not a scientific investigation, that's a lifestyle choice.
I assume you have never owned a sheep farm?
I can think of a couple of reasons why that study might be useful:
1: Draging sheep from the yard to the cutting floor is bloody hard work,
any way to decrease that amount of work means more work done and more
money for the farmers.
2: Does the surface damage the wool? (yes, small
differences in wool quality can matter)
Compared to the money made from the wool industry in some counties,
30 grand on such a study seems small change to me. If the study
increases profits by a few percent per farmer, that can equate to
millions more the the country (especially for Australia && New Zealand).
bewtifulfreak
> "Col" <Reddw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:bloj3n$e4pne$1...@ID-120826.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> "Peter Chant" <pe...@petezilla.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:blnnav$1cb$4...@phoenix.fire...
>>> In article <blnh7n$fji$2...@titan.btinternet.com>,
>> > >
>>>
>>> Was it public funding or was it funded my Huntley and Palmer,
>>> McVitties or United Biscuits?
>>
>> Somebody in another ng was whinging about this, but it turns out that
>> the research was funded by the buscuit company.
>> In which case they are perfectly at liberty to spend their money on
>> whatever they wish.
Why not? It's no more foolish than the jillions (okay, I'm exaggerating
slightly) that companies spend on other marketing ploys like advertising and
packaging changes. If they think it's gonna sell them more biscuits,
they'll research it. That's business for you; unfortunately, they don't go
around donating *all* their money to worthy causes (if any at all).
> Hercule Platini wrote:
> Ah. Well, you see, the thing is, old fruit, that the biscuit
> companies are funded by us, the public, because we buy their
> biscuits, so technically they are publically funded....
>
> Or I was misinformed.
Ah, but, unlike with government spending of public funds, you at least have
a choice as to whether to buy those biscuits, and thus, as to whether to
fund their research practices. And, unlike with the government taking taxes
off you, at least you get a packet of biscuits in the bargain.
Ann
--
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
justbob
"Brett" <inv...@example.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbokm7k....@sparky.home...
them there. No wool damage, no dragging... admittedly there is the rain of
fecal matter and some bleeding hearts would call this solution inhumane but
it does sound simpler.... or not.... I think I need some coffee
--
justbob (better living through hanging sheep)
Peter Chant
A phrase we hear far too infrequently nowadays.
:-)
Angof
justbob wrote:
> "Brett" <inv...@example.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnbokm7k....@sparky.home...
>>
>> Compared to the money made from the wool industry in some counties,
>> 30 grand on such a study seems small change to me. If the study
>> increases profits by a few percent per farmer, that can equate to
>> millions more the the country (especially for Australia && New
>> Zealand).
>>
> wouldn't it be much simpler to suspend the sheep in mid-air... I mean
> raise them there. No wool damage, no dragging... admittedly there is
> the rain of fecal matter and some bleeding hearts would call this
> solution inhumane but it does sound simpler.... or not.... I think I
> need some coffee
The sheep farmers could inject them with helium and lead them over with bits
of string...simple.
Angof
Hercule Platini
"bewtifulfreak" <bewtifulfr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bmg16u$lul12$1...@ID-203359.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
>
> Why not? It's no more foolish than the jillions (okay, I'm exaggerating
> slightly) that companies spend on other marketing ploys like advertising
and
> packaging changes. If they think it's gonna sell them more biscuits,
> they'll research it. That's business for you; unfortunately, they don't
go
> around donating *all* their money to worthy causes (if any at all).
>
>
> > Hercule Platini wrote:
>
> >
I was misinformed!!!!!!!!!!
> Ah, but, unlike with government spending of public funds, you at least
have
> a choice as to whether to buy those biscuits, and thus, as to whether to
> fund their research practices. And, unlike with the government taking
taxes
> off you, at least you get a packet of biscuits in the bargain.
I'm sure that none of the scientist bods at McVities's went through years of
college and science classes in order to solve the mysteries of broken
biscuits, any more than (I'm quoting xomeone; can't remember who) those who
graduated with engineering degrees really wanted to work in a toaster
factory and design toasters. (Apologies to any toasters reading - you know
who you are.) I just have a feeling of waste when imagining smart,
intelligent young people applying their brain power to the most pointless,
trivial matters that most people really don't give a wet slap about. Also,
surely it's in the biscuit companies' interests NOT to solve this problem?
If two biscuits in a packet of twenty are broken, then it stands to reason
that to have the same number of whole biscuits you're going to have to buy
10% more biscuits. Ergo, solving this problem would cut the income of the
biscuits companies by 10%.
Besides, McVities could encase their Choc Fudge Nibbles in hermetically
sealed titanium-reinforced steel boxes; it would make no difference once the
squinty-eyed biscuit jugglers in Tescos got round to landing them onto the
shelves. By the look of the last packet of Ginger Crunches I had, they were
lobbed over from the far side of the toiletries aisle and ricocheted off
Cashier Number Three and the frozen chicken racks.
Hercule Platini
"justbob" <no...@hamster.net> wrote in message
news:voo6l8l...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> wouldn't it be much simpler to suspend the sheep in mid-air... I mean
raise
> them there. No wool damage, no dragging... admittedly there is the rain of
> fecal matter and some bleeding hearts would call this solution inhumane
but
> it does sound simpler.... or not.... I think I need some coffee
Could you telekinetically will the sheep where you want it to go?
Hercule Platini
> > Also - and I am NOT making this up - a report, again funded out of
public
> > money, though this time Australian. I think the title gives it away:
"An
> > Analysis of the Forces Required to Drag Sheep over Various Surfaces."
> > That's not a scientific investigation, that's a lifestyle choice.
>
> I assume you have never owned a sheep farm?
It's uncanny, I don't know how you do it, but you're right again!
> I can think of a couple of reasons why that study might be useful:
> 1: Draging sheep from the yard to the cutting floor is bloody hard work,
> any way to decrease that amount of work means more work done and more
> money for the farmers.
Why drag the sheep? Seems to me you just have to make the sheep want to go
into the cutting yard. Try chasing after it with a Welsh accent.
> 2: Does the surface damage the wool? (yes, small
> differences in wool quality can matter)
Put them in a barrel and roll them in.
:-)
Hercule Platini
Yes, but one strong wind and you've got dozens of Australian farmers being
dangled over the Outback by flying sheep. The sheep are screaming for help
but they're on helium and the only ones who can hear them are dingos. It's
madness, I tell you, madness!
Hercule Platini
> In article <slrnbokm7k....@sparky.home>,
> Brett <inv...@example.net> writes:
> >
> > I assume you have never owned a sheep farm?
>
> A phrase we hear far too infrequently nowadays.
Isn't it #236 in the Thousand And One Guaranteed Chat Up Lines?
Angof
Hercule Platini wrote:
> "Angof" <oan1v...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:bmhls8$mk5bh$1...@ID-78362.news.uni-berlin.de...
>>
>>
>>
>> The sheep farmers could inject them with helium and lead them over
>> with bits of string...simple.
>
>
> Yes, but one strong wind and you've got dozens of Australian farmers
> being dangled over the Outback by flying sheep. The sheep are
> screaming for help but they're on helium and the only ones who can
> hear them are dingos. It's madness, I tell you, madness!
Well it goes without saying that marksmen would be on hand to deal with any
'flyaways' and a counselling service could be provided for any distressed
dingos.
Angof
justbob
"Hercule Platini" <ningy...@nobnob.com> wrote in message
news:bmpie5$miv$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> "justbob" <no...@hamster.net> wrote in message
> news:voo6l8l...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> >
> > wouldn't it be much simpler to suspend the sheep in mid-air... I mean
> raise
> > them there. No wool damage, no dragging... admittedly there is the rain
of
> > fecal matter and some bleeding hearts would call this solution inhumane
> but
> > it does sound simpler.... or not.... I think I need some coffee
>
>
> Could you telekinetically will the sheep where you want it to go?
>
>
>
mind will be potty-trained so that this will no longer be necessary.
Nameless
<ningy...@nobnob.com> wrote:
>
>"Peter Chant" <pe...@petezilla.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:bmhc55$q42$1...@phoenix.fire...
>> In article <slrnbokm7k....@sparky.home>,
>> Brett <inv...@example.net> writes:
>> >
>> > I assume you have never owned a sheep farm?
>>
>> A phrase we hear far too infrequently nowadays.
>
>
>Isn't it #236 in the Thousand And One Guaranteed Chat Up Lines?
I thought that was the 'Does this smell like chloroform to you?' line.
Or was that one higher...
--
Name, the fame
Hercule Platini
Sheep sharpshooters and dingo shrinks.
--
Captain Hercule "Battenberg" Platini
bewtifulfreak
> "bewtifulfreak" <bewtifulfr...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> Ah, but, unlike with government spending of public funds, you at
>> least have a choice as to whether to buy those biscuits, and thus,
>> as to whether to fund their research practices. And, unlike with
>> the government taking taxes off you, at least you get a packet of
>> biscuits in the bargain.
>
>
> I'm sure that none of the scientist bods at McVities's went through
> years of college and science classes in order to solve the mysteries
> of broken biscuits, any more than (I'm quoting xomeone; can't
> remember who) those who graduated with engineering degrees really
> wanted to work in a toaster factory and design toasters. (Apologies
> to any toasters reading - you know who you are.) I just have a
> feeling of waste when imagining smart, intelligent young people
> applying their brain power to the most pointless, trivial matters
> that most people really don't give a wet slap about.
I'm sure they didn't; I wasn't really defending this behavior per se, just
saying that it doesn't really surprise me, as companies spend a lot of money
on dumb marketing-type behavior. And that, at least if you hear about a
company investing large amounts of money into something stupid, you can
avoid sponsoring such behavior by not investing your hard (or
otherwise)-earned cash in their product, which is not always the case with
assinine government-led spending.
Example: I heard that, after sending out questionaires, it was found that
everyone in a certain neighborhood was opossed to the myriad speed bumps
that the government had just spent tons of money putting down, so they spent
tons more money taking them up again. It occured to me that, if the
peoples' opinion was really that important in the decision-making process (a
fresh, exciting concept in government spending, as far as I'm concerned),
that it might have been prudent to send out the questionaire *before*
spending all the money to put down the speed bumps in the first place.
Also, surely
> it's in the biscuit companies' interests NOT to solve this problem?
> If two biscuits in a packet of twenty are broken, then it stands to
> reason that to have the same number of whole biscuits you're going to
> have to buy 10% more biscuits. Ergo, solving this problem would cut
> the income of the biscuits companies by 10%.
Yeah, but if, for some reason, you were anal-retentive enough to only want
to eat non-broken biscuits, you wouldn't continue to keep spending money on
a brand that only gave you 90% of edible biscuits in a package, now would
you?
> Besides, McVities could encase their Choc Fudge Nibbles in
> hermetically sealed titanium-reinforced steel boxes; it would make no
> difference once the squinty-eyed biscuit jugglers in Tescos got round
> to landing them onto the shelves. By the look of the last packet of
> Ginger Crunches I had, they were lobbed over from the far side of the
> toiletries aisle and ricocheted off Cashier Number Three and the
> frozen chicken racks.
Again, I see and agree with your point, but you just can't talk sense to
people with too much money, and I think companies that invest in broken
biscuit research probably fall under this category.
Ann
--
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Hercule Platini
> Hercule Platini wrote:
> > "bewtifulfreak" <bewtifulfr...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >> Ah, but, unlike with government spending of public funds, you at
> >> least have a choice as to whether to buy those biscuits, and thus,
> >> as to whether to fund their research practices. And, unlike with
> >> the government taking taxes off you, at least you get a packet of
> >> biscuits in the bargain.
> >
> >
> > I'm sure that none of the scientist bods at McVities's went through
> > years of college and science classes in order to solve the mysteries
> > of broken biscuits, any more than (I'm quoting xomeone; can't
> > remember who) those who graduated with engineering degrees really
> > wanted to work in a toaster factory and design toasters. (Apologies
> > to any toasters reading - you know who you are.) I just have a
> > feeling of waste when imagining smart, intelligent young people
> > applying their brain power to the most pointless, trivial matters
> > that most people really don't give a wet slap about.
>
> I'm sure they didn't; I wasn't really defending this behavior per se, just
> saying that it doesn't really surprise me, as companies spend a lot of
money
> on dumb marketing-type behavior. And that, at least if you hear about a
> company investing large amounts of money into something stupid, you can
> avoid sponsoring such behavior by not investing your hard (or
> otherwise)-earned cash in their product, which is not always the case with
> assinine government-led spending.
Thing is, I don't believe I'm unreasonable or unrepresentative of the
populace at large when I claim that if one or two biscuits in a packet are
broken. I mean, as soon as you sink your teeth into an unbroken biscuit
it's just broken as a broken biscuit, but without the teeth marks. Unless
you swallow your ginger shorties whole, the damn thing's going to be in a
non-unbroken state by the time it hits your epiglottis.
> Also, surely
> > it's in the biscuit companies' interests NOT to solve this problem?
> > If two biscuits in a packet of twenty are broken, then it stands to
> > reason that to have the same number of whole biscuits you're going to
> > have to buy 10% more biscuits. Ergo, solving this problem would cut
> > the income of the biscuits companies by 10%.
>
> Yeah, but if, for some reason, you were anal-retentive enough to only want
> to eat non-broken biscuits, you wouldn't continue to keep spending money
on
> a brand that only gave you 90% of edible biscuits in a package, now would
> you?
But the broken ones are still edible, just in smaller chunks.
> > Besides, McVities could encase their Choc Fudge Nibbles in
> > hermetically sealed titanium-reinforced steel boxes; it would make no
> > difference once the squinty-eyed biscuit jugglers in Tescos got round
> > to landing them onto the shelves. By the look of the last packet of
> > Ginger Crunches I had, they were lobbed over from the far side of the
> > toiletries aisle and ricocheted off Cashier Number Three and the
> > frozen chicken racks.
>
> Again, I see and agree with your point, but you just can't talk sense to
> people with too much money, and I think companies that invest in broken
> biscuit research probably fall under this category.
Oh absolutely. And I can't remember the last time I spend over a month
talking about broken biscuits.
(Wait a minute...Feb 14th - March 22nd, 1996. Maybe that's why the council
sacked me.)
--
Captain Hercule "Battenberg" Platini
bewtifulfreak
> "bewtifulfreak" <bewtifulfr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> I'm sure they didn't; I wasn't really defending this behavior per
>> se, just saying that it doesn't really surprise me, as companies
>> spend a lot of money on dumb marketing-type behavior. And that, at
>> least if you hear about a company investing large amounts of money
>> into something stupid, you can avoid sponsoring such behavior by not
>> investing your hard (or otherwise)-earned cash in their product,
>> which is not always the case with assinine government-led spending.
>
> Thing is, I don't believe I'm unreasonable or unrepresentative of the
> populace at large when I claim that if one or two biscuits in a
> packet are broken. I mean, as soon as you sink your teeth into an
> unbroken biscuit it's just broken as a broken biscuit, but without
> the teeth marks. Unless you swallow your ginger shorties whole, the
> damn thing's going to be in a non-unbroken state by the time it hits
> your epiglottis.
I know, you're right of course. But if we're talking about England, people
tend to like their biscuits unbroken when they start on them for the most
part, so they're suitable for tea dunking. You can dunk a broken buscuit, of
course, but it depends how small the pieces are that it's broken into.
(Sorry, I realize the wording of that last phrase is grammatically awkward
and probably incorrect, but I can't think of a better way of phrasing it
right now, you're welcome to have a go. I wanted to say, "....it depends on
how small of pieces it's broken into," but I *know* that's grammatically
incorrect, it just flows better off my tongue, for some reason.)
>> Yeah, but if, for some reason, you were anal-retentive enough to
>> only want to eat non-broken biscuits, you wouldn't continue to keep
>> spending money on a brand that only gave you 90% of edible biscuits
>> in a package, now would you?
>
> But the broken ones are still edible, just in smaller chunks.
Okay, still edible. I meant because you said:
Also, surely
> it's in the biscuit companies' interests NOT to solve this problem?
> If two biscuits in a packet of twenty are broken, then it stands to
> reason that to have the same number of whole biscuits you're going to
> have to buy 10% more biscuits. Ergo, solving this problem would cut
> the income of the biscuits companies by 10%.
....that if someone was anal-retentive enough to care about 10% of their
biscuits being broken, as in the above example you offered, they would be
unlikely to continue buying buscuits from a company who continued to have
broken biscuits in their package. I realize, however, that this is not most
of the normal human population, and yes, the broken ones are indeed still
edible....I made the incorrect connection that someone who cared that much
about their biscuits being broken might consider the broken ones 'inedible',
but I think I was taking the whole concept too far.
>>> Besides, McVities could encase their Choc Fudge Nibbles in
>>> hermetically sealed titanium-reinforced steel boxes; it would make
>>> no difference once the squinty-eyed biscuit jugglers in Tescos got
>>> round to landing them onto the shelves. By the look of the last
>>> packet of Ginger Crunches I had, they were lobbed over from the far
>>> side of the toiletries aisle and ricocheted off Cashier Number
>>> Three and the
>>> frozen chicken racks.
>>
>> Again, I see and agree with your point, but you just can't talk
>> sense to people with too much money, and I think companies that
>> invest in broken biscuit research probably fall under this category.
>
> Oh absolutely. And I can't remember the last time I spend over a
> month talking about broken biscuits.
Me neither....speaking only for myself, I obviously have too much free time
on my hands (and the rest of me, apparently)....
> (Wait a minute...Feb 14th - March 22nd, 1996. Maybe that's why the
> council sacked me.)
Sounds like unfair business practices to me, but then, that's the government
for you.
--
Ann
A California Yankee in Queen Elizabeth's Court
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/bewtifulfreak
Alun
news:bpnd8p$1pmun3$1...@ID-203359.news.uni-berlin.de:
When I was at university in Loughborough, we used to go to Ashby to buy
broken biscuits at the gate of the United Biscuits factory. There's a
limit to how many biscuits you can carry on a motorbike, though!
bewtifulfreak
> When I was at university in Loughborough, we used to go to Ashby to
> buy broken biscuits at the gate of the United Biscuits factory.
> There's a limit to how many biscuits you can carry on a motorbike,
> though!
LOL! Yeah, that's the ironic thing....some company is spending all this
money on preventing broken biscuits, while others capitialize on the
phenomenon, and sell them off cheap in the shops (or in your case, right at
the factory). :)
Hercule Platini
"bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bpnd8p$1pmun3$1...@ID-203359.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Hercule Platini wrote:
> > "bewtifulfreak" <bewtifulfr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> I'm sure they didn't; I wasn't really defending this behavior per
> >> se, just saying that it doesn't really surprise me, as companies
> >> spend a lot of money on dumb marketing-type behavior. And that, at
> >> least if you hear about a company investing large amounts of money
> >> into something stupid, you can avoid sponsoring such behavior by not
> >> investing your hard (or otherwise)-earned cash in their product,
> >> which is not always the case with assinine government-led spending.
> >
> > Thing is, I don't believe I'm unreasonable or unrepresentative of the
> > populace at large when I claim that if one or two biscuits in a
> > packet are broken. I mean, as soon as you sink your teeth into an
> > unbroken biscuit it's just broken as a broken biscuit, but without
> > the teeth marks. Unless you swallow your ginger shorties whole, the
> > damn thing's going to be in a non-unbroken state by the time it hits
> > your epiglottis.
>
> I know, you're right of course. But if we're talking about England,
people
> tend to like their biscuits unbroken when they start on them for the most
> part, so they're suitable for tea dunking. You can dunk a broken buscuit,
of
> course, but it depends how small the pieces are that it's broken into.
I am not a dunker. Unless it's bread into soup, but that's different. For
one thing, you get soggy goo in the dunked area of the biscuit, which you
slurp, and thus avoid that satisfying crunch of mercury filling on ginger
nut. For another, if you dunk too long, the dunked bit drops off and turns
to squelch at the bottom of the tea. This always feels wrong when you swig
back the last of the tea and find this alien stuff in your mouth.
> (Sorry, I realize the wording of that last phrase is grammatically awkward
> and probably incorrect, but I can't think of a better way of phrasing it
> right now, you're welcome to have a go. I wanted to say, "....it depends
on
> how small of pieces it's broken into," but I *know* that's grammatically
> incorrect, it just flows better off my tongue, for some reason.)
Read fine to me.
Hercule Platini
"Alun" <al...@1stcounsel.com> wrote in message
news:Xns943B8169442D...@130.133.1.4...
> When I was at university in Loughborough, we used to go to Ashby to buy
> broken biscuits at the gate of the United Biscuits factory. There's a
> limit to how many biscuits you can carry on a motorbike, though!
Well, of course it's always possible that there's a big market in broken
biscuits. In fact it's not unlikely that the broken biscuits market has
overtaken the complete biscuits market in some areas of the country, with
the result that biscuit companies are deliberately breaking biscuits to sell
cheap to students, so as to dissuade them from buying complete biscuits and
breaking them themselves; thus denying the pleasure of the Complete Biscuit
to the people who really like complete biscuits.
bewtifulfreak
> "bewtifulfreak" <bewtif...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bpnd8p$1pmun3$1...@ID-203359.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> Hercule Platini wrote:
>>> Thing is, I don't believe I'm unreasonable or unrepresentative of
>>> the populace at large when I claim that if one or two biscuits in a
>>> packet are broken. I mean, as soon as you sink your teeth into an
>>> unbroken biscuit it's just broken as a broken biscuit, but without
>>> the teeth marks. Unless you swallow your ginger shorties whole, the
>>> damn thing's going to be in a non-unbroken state by the time it hits
>>> your epiglottis.
>>
>> I know, you're right of course. But if we're talking about England,
>> people tend to like their biscuits unbroken when they start on them
>> for the most part, so they're suitable for tea dunking. You can dunk
>> a broken buscuit, of course, but it depends how small the pieces are
>> that it's broken into.
>
> I am not a dunker. Unless it's bread into soup, but that's
> different. For one thing, you get soggy goo in the dunked area of
> the biscuit, which you slurp, and thus avoid that satisfying crunch
> of mercury filling on ginger nut. For another, if you dunk too long,
> the dunked bit drops off and turns to squelch at the bottom of the
> tea. This always feels wrong when you swig back the last of the tea
> and find this alien stuff in your mouth.
Well, I like crunchy biscuits sometimes, but I like them dunked as well, and
I like that tasty goo at the bottom of the mug (I've mentioned many times
before how weird I am!). Anyway, while there may be many who agree with
you, I know there are just as many who like a good dunk, my hubby being one
of them (though he does so carefully, as to avoid the goo).
(That was a completely unintentional double entendre, by the way....)
>> (Sorry, I realize the wording of that last phrase is grammatically
>> awkward and probably incorrect, but I can't think of a better way of
>> phrasing it right now, you're welcome to have a go. I wanted to
>> say, "....it depends on how small of pieces it's broken into," but I
>> *know* that's grammatically incorrect, it just flows better off my
>> tongue, for some reason.)
>
> Read fine to me.
Glad to hear it. :)