Information for Tonight
Hiroko
realize that if you are going to have a turkey you prob. already bought it.
So, some advice for tonight.
Cut it out and paste it in the bathroom:
==============================
Name: Salmonellosis
Type: Infection, possible toxin-mediated
Symptoms: Abdominal cramps, headache, nausea, fever, diarrhea, and
sometimes vomiting; may cause severe dehydration in infants and the elderly;
may cause arthritic symptoms 3 to 4 weeks later.
Incubation Period: 6 to 48 hours; usually 12 to 36.
Duration of Illness: 1 to 2 days
Fatality: Rare, only in infants and elderly if not treated.
Cure: Time and PowerAde.
Prevention: Your turkey has salmonella. However it dies at 165 degrees.
So when you check the temp of the turkey check it in the thickest part of
the thigh, NOT the breast. (Besides which, piercing the breast causes the
juices to bubble out and dry out the breast)
Juices should run clear when you pierce it and the joints are lose.
kenji
"Hiroko" <jnapier@spam@21stcentury.net> wrote:
> Prevention: Your turkey has salmonella. However it dies at 165 degrees.
> So when you check the temp of the turkey check it in the thickest part of
> the thigh, NOT the breast. (Besides which, piercing the breast causes the
> juices to bubble out and dry out the breast)
> Juices should run clear when you pierce it and the joints are lose.
Jacque Pepin(sp?) on his show, slit the bird under it's wings and under
it's legs near the thigh, and took off the ends of the legs to get heat
into those hard to heat areas.
WilliamS
Go on over to Trung Viet Grocery Store on Sheridan just south of Argyle and
pick up some Shen Qu Cha (Fermented Leaven Tea). I had food poisoning once
(not sure if it was salmanella). An hour after drinking this tea I went
from thrashing around in a pool of sweat with horrible abdominal agony to
sitting under a tree, weakly enjoying a sunny afternoon. You can also get
it at Kang Tai at 5413 N. Clark from Dr. Wu.
Tony Atoms
kenji <ke...@enteract.com> wrote:
Another option is to not eat dead animal carcasses.
Dan
> > > Prevention: Your turkey has salmonella. However it dies at 165 degrees.
> Another option is to not eat dead animal carcasses.
Well, let's see. You can get salmonella from veggies and fruit now, so
I suppose we shouldn't eat them either?
kenji
Tony Atoms <to...@noSPAMatoms.net> wrote:
That is not an option.
Tony Atoms
kenji <ke...@enteract.com> wrote:
> In article <tony-67C895.1...@newsrump.sjc.telocity.net>,
> Tony Atoms <to...@noSPAMatoms.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <kenji-518354....@virt-reader.news.rcn.net>,
> > kenji <ke...@enteract.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <9tja5q$a6k$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>,
> > > "Hiroko" <jnapier@spam@21stcentury.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Prevention: Your turkey has salmonella. However it dies at
> > > > 165 degrees. So when you check the temp of the turkey check it
> > > > in the thickest part of the thigh, NOT the breast. (Besides
> > > > which, piercing the breast causes the juices to bubble out and
> > > > dry out the breast) Juices should run clear when you pierce it
> > > > and the joints are lose.
> > > Jacque Pepin(sp?) on his show, slit the bird under it's wings and under
> > > it's legs near the thigh, and took off the ends of the legs to get heat
> > > into those hard to heat areas.
> >
> > Another option is to not eat dead animal carcasses.
>
> That is not an option.
What leads you to this conclusion? Are you in prison? Or a small child
or otherwise incapable of making dietary choices?
kenji
Tony Atoms <to...@noSPAMatoms.net> wrote:
Humans are meant to eat animals and their by-products. Those that don't
are abnormal.
Chicago Paddling-Fishing
: In article <kenji-F195E1....@virt-reader.news.rcn.net>,
: kenji wrote:
: > Humans are meant to eat animals and their by-products.
: And if we aren't meant to eat animals, then why are they made of meat?
Plants generate oxygen, therefore eating plants destroys perfectly good
oxygen generating plants... on the other hand, animals comsume oxygen
and generate waste products... therefore, eat plants and kill the planet,
or eat animals and save the planet!
--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)
Clifton T. Sharp Jr.
> Another option is to not eat dead animal carcasses.
The live ones won't hold still once you stick your fork in them.
--
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Cliff Sharp | "light jazz" is to jazz as "rubber band" is to orchestra. |
| WA9PDM | |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- http://www.spamfree.org/ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
pete in chicago
> Tony Atoms wrote:
> > Another option is to not eat dead animal carcasses.
> The live ones won't hold still once you stick your fork in them.
cliff -
your ole lady must not be home...
she's at work - that's good...
women need to work
Tony Atoms
I'm suggesting risk reduction, not malnutrition.
G.
>Another option is to not eat dead animal carcasses.
A roasted turkey is not a carcass, dumbass.
Tony Atoms
G. <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: car·cass
Pronunciation: 'kär-k&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English carcays, from Middle French carcasse, from
Old French carcois
Date: 14th century
1 : a dead body : CORPSE; especially : the dressed body of a meat animal
...
Complicated Man
You have caused Matt Black to make a Wix = Tony Atoms entry in his
database, figure that there is nobody in the world except him, and
instantly disappear into his own bunghole and die.
Hope you are ashamed of yourself.
G.
> G. <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>> to...@noSPAMatoms.net writes:
>>
>> >Another option is to not eat dead animal carcasses.
>>
>> A roasted turkey is not a carcass, dumbass.
>>
>from Merriam-Webster:
>
>Pronunciation: 'kaer-k&s
>Function: noun
>Etymology: Middle English carcays, from Middle French carcasse, from
>Old French carcois
>Date: 14th century
>1 : a dead body : CORPSE; especially : the dressed body of a meat animal
That is really strange. Do people use it that way, I mean people who
aren't anti-meat weirdos?
Michael Dix
>
> to...@noSPAMatoms.net writes:
> > G. <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> to...@noSPAMatoms.net writes:
> >>
> >> >Another option is to not eat dead animal carcasses.
> >>
> >> A roasted turkey is not a carcass, dumbass.
> >1 : a dead body : CORPSE; especially : the dressed body of a meat animal
>
> That is really strange. Do people use it that way, I mean people who
> aren't anti-meat weirdos?
Yes. Betty Crocker was no weirdo, though she is from Minnesota
(ObGeoffGassbashing)
Chicken or Turkey Soup
(Curtain call of the holiday bird.)
Remove meat from carcass of chicken, turkey, or duck and set
aside. Crack bones. Place in kettle, add skin ...
Betty Crocker's Picture Cookbook (c) General Mills Inc. 1950
neil klopfenstein
Butchers.
G.
Most Respected Assembled Dumbassi:
When I ask do people use it that way, I mean do people presented with
a mouth-watering big juicy roasted turkey say "sit down ma and let's
all dig into the dead animal carcass!"?? I don't THINK so! The reason
why has become clear to me: the dressed body of a meat animal is what
sits in the kitchen waiting to be cooked, not what we carnivores sit
down to eat. I reiterate: a roasted turkey is not a carcass.
"G.": 2
Tony: 0
Michael Dix
> When I ask do people use it that way, I mean do people presented with
> a mouth-watering big juicy roasted turkey say "sit down ma and let's
> all dig into the dead animal carcass!"?? I don't THINK so! The reason
> why has become clear to me: the dressed body of a meat animal is what
> sits in the kitchen waiting to be cooked, not what we carnivores sit
> down to eat. I reiterate: a roasted turkey is not a carcass.
Well, then: try saying what you mean next time. You are correct.
I've never heard anyone at Thanksgiving say, "Could you pass the
carcass this way, please?" I suspect Tony is simply trying to
make meat-eating seem as unpleasant as possible - we're lucky
he didn't say corpse.
OTOH, at one Thanksgiving - meal over, guests snoozing in front
of the TV - my wife asked me, "So what should we do with the rest
of the turkey?" And I said, "Betty Crocker says you can make soup
out of the carcass."
G.
>"G." wrote:
>
>> When I ask do people use it that way, I mean do people presented with
>> a mouth-watering big juicy roasted turkey say "sit down ma and let's
>> all dig into the dead animal carcass!"?? I don't THINK so! The reason
>> why has become clear to me: the dressed body of a meat animal is what
>> sits in the kitchen waiting to be cooked, not what we carnivores sit
>> down to eat. I reiterate: a roasted turkey is not a carcass.
>
>Well, then: try saying what you mean next time.
I said what I meant, and then I gave a specific example. You could have
done a little creative thinking on your own too. "Hmm, when someone says
``you shouldn't eat animal carcasses'' that's kind of strange, because
really you don't eat the bones or tendons or other miscellaneous nonmeat
parts..." See where I'm going? I said "do people use it that way",
meaning, with respect to what they eat. You don't eat a carcass -- you
cook it before you eat it, and, unless it's a bird or you're at a pig
roast, the butcher is the only person who had much to do with the carcass.
>I've never heard anyone at Thanksgiving say, "Could you pass the
>carcass this way, please?" I suspect Tony is simply trying to
>make meat-eating seem as unpleasant as possible -
Duh!
>OTOH, at one Thanksgiving - meal over, guests snoozing in front
>of the TV - my wife asked me, "So what should we do with the rest
>of the turkey?" And I said, "Betty Crocker says you can make soup
>out of the carcass."
c. Cookery. The bones of a cooked bird, esp. as used for making stock,
etc.
* 1883 Cassell's Dict. Cookery p. xxvii, In all large
establishments..there is much left of cooked meat, bones, carcases
of fowls and game, c., and which materially help to fill up the
stock-pot.
* 1956 C. Spry Cookery Bk. 115 Ordinary household stock..may contain
cooked meat bones, chicken carcasses, vegetables, [etc.].
* 1963 Hume Downes Penguin Cordon Bleu Cookery 35 Use good chicken
stock..made from the liquor from a poached chicken and
strengthened with the carcass bones after carving the bird.
Michael Dix
"G." wrote:
>
> mj...@best.vwh.net writes:
> >Well, then: try saying what you mean next time.
>
> I said what I meant, and then I gave a specific example.
Well, yeah. Finally.
neil klopfenstein
This is the biggest Wix I've ever seen out of you, G. Sheesh!
Geoff Gass
> You have caused Matt Black to make a Wix = Tony Atoms entry in his
> database, figure that there is nobody in the world except him, and
> instantly disappear into his own bunghole and die.
How does one differentiate between Matt Black and Matt Black's bunghole?
Geoff Gass
> In article <slrna0l8u...@mulford.dyndns.org>, Geoff Gassed:
-10 for taking the obvious joke.
max
wrote:
> I mean do people presented with
> a mouth-watering big juicy roasted turkey say "sit down ma and let's
> all dig into the dead animal carcass!"?? I don't THINK so!
I'm thinkin' ....
Tushie, with a fifteen pound Hoka, a wood chipper and five gallons of
V-8.
.max
--
the part of <beta...@earthlink.net>
was played by maxwell monningh 8-p
Tony Atoms
max <beta...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <hHsO7.3$t4....@news.uchicago.edu>, g...@cs.uchicago.edu
> wrote:
>
> > I mean do people presented with
> > a mouth-watering big juicy roasted turkey say "sit down ma and let's
> > all dig into the dead animal carcass!"?? I don't THINK so!
>
> I'm thinkin' ....
>
> Tushie, with a fifteen pound Hoka, a wood chipper and five gallons of
> V-8.
>
I thought he hated V8?
David
>>> the dressed body of a meat animal is what sits in the kitchen
>>> waiting to be cooked, not what we carnivores sit down to eat. I
>>> reiterate: a roasted turkey is not a carcass.
"Carcass" was obviously used correctly for effect, to create a less
than appetizing image. Is there no hairsplitting nitpick about some
insignificant usage that you'll let pass, OED boy?
> * 1963 Hume Downes Penguin Cordon Bleu Cookery 35 Use good chicken
> stock..made from the liquor from a poached chicken and
> strengthened with the carcass bones after carving the bird.
So the carcass becomes something else after cooking and reverts to being
a carcass after carving?
Carcass : The dead body of an animal, especially one slaughtered for food.
--American Heritage Dictionary
The distinction doesn't evaporate when cooked.
David
--
Most e-mail replies to this article will not be accepted.
max
wrote:
> The distinction doesn't evaporate when cooked.
Technically, it reduces.
.max
When chilled, it sets.
G.
>G. <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>>> the dressed body of a meat animal is what sits in the kitchen
>>>> waiting to be cooked, not what we carnivores sit down to eat. I
>>>> reiterate: a roasted turkey is not a carcass.
>
>"Carcass" was obviously used correctly for effect, to create a less
>than appetizing image. Is there no hairsplitting nitpick about some
>insignificant usage that you'll let pass, OED boy?
A roasted turkey is not a carcass. Pleading "for effect" won't get anyone
out of the Grammar Jail in this town. We follow the letter of the law here.
>> * 1963 Hume Downes Penguin Cordon Bleu Cookery 35 Use good chicken
>> stock..made from the liquor from a poached chicken and
>> strengthened with the carcass bones after carving the bird.
>
>So the carcass becomes something else after cooking and reverts to being
>a carcass after carving?
>
>Carcass : The dead body of an animal, especially one slaughtered for food.
> --American Heritage Dictionary
>
>The distinction doesn't evaporate when cooked.
Sorry Charlie, slaughtering an animal (or dressing it) does not cook it
or make it suitable for gustation. Find a definition saying "cooked" or
something synonumous and you will be correct. Until then, you're creating
spurious connotations.
"G.": 3
wix: 0
David
> Pleading "for effect" won't get anyone out of the Grammar Jail in
> this town. We follow the letter of the law here.
"We" don't do that. It's just conversation, not grammar school.
But it doesn't alter the fact that you're wrong. The writer in this
case chose the best word for his purpose.
>> Carcass : The dead body of an animal, especially one slaughtered for
>> food. --American Heritage Dictionary
>> The distinction doesn't evaporate when cooked.
> Sorry Charlie, slaughtering an animal (or dressing it) does not cook it
> or make it suitable for gustation.
Which has nothing to do with the fact that it's still technically a
carcass when it's "suitable for gustation".
> Find a definition saying "cooked" or something synonumous and you
> will be correct. Until then, you're creating spurious connotations.
Okay. Posted by G... Why, that's you, Greg.
* 1963 Hume Downes Penguin Cordon Bleu Cookery 35 Use good chicken
stock..made from the liquor from a poached chicken and
strengthened with the carcass bones after carving the bird.
Is "poached" synonymous enough for you?
> "G.": 3
> wix: 0
That was funny... the first year you did it.
Oh yeah, grammar boy, if you wish to be consistent, it's either G. and
David or gw and wix.
neil klopfenstein
>G. <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> "G.": 3
>> wix: 0
>
>That was funny... the first year you did it.
>
>Oh yeah, grammar boy, if you wish to be consistent, it's either G. and
>David or gw and wix.
Wix reminds me of the person who told me once that I should change the
spelling of either my first or last name because there are two "ei"s with
different sounds. Sometimes there are more important things than consistency!
G.
>>> Carcass : The dead body of an animal, especially one slaughtered for
>>> food. --American Heritage Dictionary
>>> The distinction doesn't evaporate when cooked.
>
>> Sorry Charlie, slaughtering an animal (or dressing it) does not cook it
>> or make it suitable for gustation.
>
>Which has nothing to do with the fact that it's still technically a
>carcass when it's "suitable for gustation".
Well, so far you have claimed this without backing it up. I have produced
definitions that illustrate precisely what is meant by "carcass" with respect
to cooking and eating, and no where does it say that a carcass is a cooked
bird. It does say that a carcass is the bones of a cooked bird, among
other things.
>> Find a definition saying "cooked" or something synonumous and you
>> will be correct. Until then, you're creating spurious connotations.
>
>Okay. Posted by G... Why, that's you, Greg.
>
>* 1963 Hume Downes Penguin Cordon Bleu Cookery 35 Use good chicken
> stock..made from the liquor from a poached chicken and
> strengthened with the carcass bones after carving the bird.
>
>Is "poached" synonymous enough for you?
context is a good thing:
c. Cookery. The bones of a cooked bird, esp. as used for making stock,
etc.
* 1883 Cassell's Dict. Cookery p. xxvii, In all large
establishments..there is much left of cooked meat, bones, carcases
of fowls and game, c., and which materially help to fill up the
stock-pot.
* 1956 C. Spry Cookery Bk. 115 Ordinary household stock..may contain
cooked meat bones, chicken carcasses, vegetables, [etc.].
* 1963 Hume Downes Penguin Cordon Bleu Cookery 35 Use good chicken
stock..made from the liquor from a poached chicken and
strengthened with the carcass bones after carving the bird.
sorry! You can't read. And you are a moron. Or maybe you like to
eat bird bones?
Complicated Man
> Wix reminds me of the person who told me once that I should change
>the spelling of either my first or last name because there are two
>"ei"s with different sounds.
You should.
>Sometimes there are more important things than consistency!
You sound old.
neil klopfenstein
>ne...@cs.uchicago.edu writes:
>> Wix reminds me of the person who told me once that I should change
>>the spelling of either my first or last name because there are two
>>"ei"s with different sounds.
>
>You should.
Which one?
>>Sometimes there are more important things than consistency!
>
>You sound old.
I know this is just begging for a Dix line about "keeping regular" but it's
not coming to me.
Michael Dix
neil klopfenstein wrote:
>
> Wix reminds me of the person who told me once that I should change the
> spelling of either my first or last name because there are two "ei"s with
> different sounds. Sometimes there are more important things than consistency!
You mean your first name is not pronounced "Nile"?
Kneel, Klopfenstein!
(I needed to get that out of my system, thanks.)
Michael Dix
Nahh. Think "hobgoblin".
neil klopfenstein
Can you do Geoff next?
G.
huhhuh "do"
Michael Dix
>
> Michael Dix <mj...@best.vwh.net> wrote:
> >Kneel, Klopfenstein!
> >
> >(I needed to get that out of my system, thanks.)
>
> Can you do Geoff next?
Next time he publicly ponders the pronunciation of his name.
Complicated Man
Klopfenstini is defeated again.
John Rappe
That's Kenji's job.
G.
What the hell kind of name is Klopfenstini?
max
> What the hell kind of name is Klopfenstini?
duh.
it traces back to Tyrolean hanson cab drivers,
somewhere around AD 1660, istr.
.max
Geoff Gass
Why are you dragging me into this?
Geoff Gass
Okay, fine.
Hmm, I wonder how my name is pronounced.
Geoff Gass
I'd be afraid of Kenji if I weren't big enough to whup his ass.
Of course, if that weren't the case, he probably wouldn't be so into me.
pete in chicago
> Why are you dragging me into this?
c'mon now geoff - relax my brother
Complicated Man
I suppose this goes over well in Minneapolis...
Geoff Gass
Does that make me easier to drag?
Michael Dix
>
> Michael Dix <mj...@best.vwh.net> wrote:
> > neil klopfenstein wrote:
> >>
> >> Michael Dix <mj...@best.vwh.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >Kneel, Klopfenstein!
> >> >
> >> >(I needed to get that out of my system, thanks.)
> >>
> >> Can you do Geoff next?
> >
> > Next time he publicly ponders the pronunciation of his name.
>
> Okay, fine.
>
> Hmm, I wonder how my name is pronounced.
This must be a trap: Geoff hates lame jokes based on his name...
Nah, nothing is coming to me.
Jamie_Eimermann
Geoff Gass
What the fuck is your problem?
Dan
> Complicated Man writ:
> > I suppose this goes over well in Minneapolis...
>
> What the fuck is your problem?
Improper wording. Correct answer as follows....
FUCK UP!!! YOU IDIOT!!! WHAT'S YOU'RE PROBLEM!!!
Complicated Man
Thank you. I declare you an honorary UIC student.
Please, don't protest. Just bask.
David
> Sometimes there are more important things than consistency!
Such as this?
>>> I reiterate: a roasted turkey is not a carcass.
> I don't read very much Wix, to be honest..
I'm crushed.
David
> I have produced definitions that illustrate precisely what is meant by
> "carcass" with respect to cooking and eating, and no where does it
> say that a carcass is a cooked bird.
Nowhere does it say the that a carcass is not a cooked bird.
> It does say that a carcass is the bones of a cooked bird, among
> other things.
No it doesn't. It says "carcass bones" which means bones of a carcass.
Since the carcass they were talking about is a cooked bird, you lose.
>> Is "poached" synonymous enough for you?
> context is a good thing:
I agree, but it makes no difference here. But wait, I'll show you.
> * 1883 Cassell's Dict. Cookery p. xxvii, In all large establishments..
> there is much left of cooked meat, bones, carcases of fowls and
> game, c., and which materially help to fill up the stock-pot.
The reference to "carcases" is about "cooked" fowls. It's there is much
left of cooked items and they are meat, bones, "carcases" of fowls, etc.
> * 1956 C. Spry Cookery Bk. 115 Ordinary household stock..may contain
> cooked meat bones, chicken carcasses, vegetables, [etc.].
The carcasses in that ordinary household stock are "cooked".
> * 1963 Hume Downes Penguin Cordon Bleu Cookery 35 Use good chicken
> stock..made from the liquor from a poached chicken and
> strengthened with the carcass bones after carving the bird.
"Poached chicken" is cooked chicken. It's referred to as a carcass with
"carcass bones after carving the bird." "The bird" is the carcass from
which the bones came and "after carving" indicates that it was cooked.
That's "carcass bones" as in bones of a poached carcass. It's like
saying "bird bones" or "human bones" except in that case it was "carcass
bones" and that carcass was poached.
> sorry! You can't read.
That was for effect, right?
> And you are a moron. Or maybe you like to eat bird bones?
You're the moron who can't grasp what he reads. The joke is that it's
from your own source, that dusty old British dictionary you call the
"big daddy" of dictionaries. Perhaps if you called it "big granddaddy"?
neil klopfenstein
>neil klopfenstein <ne...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> Sometimes there are more important things than consistency!
>
>Such as this?
>>>> I reiterate: a roasted turkey is not a carcass.
>
>> I don't read very much Wix, to be honest..
>
>I'm crushed.
Huh?
G.
>G. <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> I have produced definitions that illustrate precisely what is meant by
>> "carcass" with respect to cooking and eating, and no where does it
>> say that a carcass is a cooked bird.
>
>Nowhere does it say the that a carcass is not a cooked bird.
Nowhere does it say that a carcass is not a witch.
>> It does say that a carcass is the bones of a cooked bird, among
>> other things.
>
>No it doesn't. It says "carcass bones" which means bones of a carcass.
>Since the carcass they were talking about is a cooked bird, you lose.
The quotation says carcass bones, which is an illustration of the
definition that says that a carcass is "the bones of a cooked bird".
They don't even agree with each other at the level of precision you're
appealing to in order to support your pathetic misinterpretation
of the meaning of the word. This would indicate that your level of
precision is not warranted -- and has no value.
>>> Is "poached" synonymous enough for you?
>
>> context is a good thing:
>
>I agree, but it makes no difference here. But wait, I'll show you.
>
>> * 1883 Cassell's Dict. Cookery p. xxvii, In all large establishments..
>> there is much left of cooked meat, bones, carcases of fowls and
>> game, c., and which materially help to fill up the stock-pot.
>
>The reference to "carcases" is about "cooked" fowls. It's there is much
>left of cooked items and they are meat, bones, "carcases" of fowls, etc.
>
>> * 1956 C. Spry Cookery Bk. 115 Ordinary household stock..may contain
>> cooked meat bones, chicken carcasses, vegetables, [etc.].
>
>The carcasses in that ordinary household stock are "cooked".
>
>> * 1963 Hume Downes Penguin Cordon Bleu Cookery 35 Use good chicken
>> stock..made from the liquor from a poached chicken and
>> strengthened with the carcass bones after carving the bird.
>
>"Poached chicken" is cooked chicken. It's referred to as a carcass with
>"carcass bones after carving the bird." "The bird" is the carcass from
>which the bones came and "after carving" indicates that it was cooked.
>
>That's "carcass bones" as in bones of a poached carcass. It's like
>saying "bird bones" or "human bones" except in that case it was "carcass
>bones" and that carcass was poached.
You don't eat them. You don't eat a carcass. That's what I said.
Actually, what I said is, a roasted turkey is not a carcass... no one
calls it that, except religious anti-meat fanatics, in which case it
is a misuse of the word. I don't expect you to ever understand the
misuse of a word, since you have demonstrated overwhelmingly that you
prefer misuse over proper use.
AND You clearly don't know enough about cooking to realize that a
carcass is something that you simmer in water with vegetables and
seasonings in order to make STOCK, which is liquid, with all the
carcass boned strained out. You never eat the carcass (unless you're
starving to death).
>> sorry! You can't read.
>
>That was for effect, right?
>
>> And you are a moron. Or maybe you like to eat bird bones?
>
>You're the moron who can't grasp what he reads. The joke is that it's
>from your own source, that dusty old British dictionary you call the
>"big daddy" of dictionaries. Perhaps if you called it "big granddaddy"?
You try to defend your position with a dictionary you don't respect,
which cites quotations from cookbooks written in British English, after
claiming before (email) that British English and American English are
different enough so that it's irrelevant... who's the moron here?
Geoff Gass
That is *so* 2000.
Geoff Gass
I do. I just thought that maybe a pronunciation joke might be a new one.
But my name's not hard to pronounce if you aren't trying too hard.
Barb Grajewski
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, G. wrote:
> w...@enteract.com writes:
> >G. <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> >> I have produced definitions that illustrate precisely what is meant by
> >> "carcass" with respect to cooking and eating, and no where does it
> >> say that a carcass is a cooked bird.
> >
> >Nowhere does it say the that a carcass is not a cooked bird.
>
> Nowhere does it say that a carcass is not a witch.
>
> >> It does say that a carcass is the bones of a cooked bird, among
> >> other things.
> >
> >No it doesn't. It says "carcass bones" which means bones of a carcass.
> >Since the carcass they were talking about is a cooked bird, you lose.
> >blah blah blah blah blah snipped
You guys really really know how to beat a dead horse
carcass.
Slow day at the office?
G.
yes, as a matter of fact
check this out
latest google tally:
email: 73,500,000.
e-mail: 7,210,000.
And here's what I love about the "e-mail" search:
Did you mean: email
do a deja search if you don't get it
Wix has totally been used to mop the floor of the dictionary debate room.
Complicated Man
>check this out
>
>latest google tally:
>
>email: 73,500,000.
>
>e-mail: 7,210,000.
>
>And here's what I love about the "e-mail" search:
>
> Did you mean: email
>
>do a deja search if you don't get it
>
>
>Wix has totally been used to mop the floor of the dictionary debate room.
Your brain is tarnished from past drubbings. Fuck up.
Dan
> You don't eat them. You don't eat a carcass. That's what I said.
FWIW, I believe you both are right. But G. seems more interested in
what he views as popular usage of the word. Which I also believe he has
wrong. There is a definite difference in how most hunters would use the
word carcass. The body of deer or elk, for example, is always called a
carcass. Dressed or not. In poultry, it is usually called a carcass
only after it is picked over by common folk. Either way, it is still
the carcass of the bird.
> Actually, what I said is, a roasted turkey is not a carcass... no one
> calls it that, except religious anti-meat fanatics, in which case it
> is a misuse of the word.
http://www.cooksrecipes.com/soup/roasted-turkey-carcass-broth-recipe.html
> I don't expect you to ever understand the
> misuse of a word, since you have demonstrated overwhelmingly that you
> prefer misuse over proper use.
> AND You clearly don't know enough about cooking to realize that a
> carcass is something that you simmer in water with vegetables and
> seasonings in order to make STOCK, which is liquid, with all the
> carcass boned strained out. You never eat the carcass (unless you're
> starving to death).
If you are making stock, you don't eat what's LEFT of the carcass after
you made the stock. You use the part of the carcass you want for your
stock, you throw the other part of the carcass away.
The reason you don't call a roasted turkey a carcass has nothing to do
with it not being one. It is because by roasting it, you have gone to
step two of using the bird. It is now a roasted carcass. Or more
palatable, a roasted turkey.
G.
>"G." wrote:
>
>> You don't eat them. You don't eat a carcass. That's what I said.
>
>FWIW, I believe you both are right. But G. seems more interested in
>what he views as popular usage of the word. Which I also believe he has
>wrong. There is a definite difference in how most hunters would use the
>word carcass. The body of deer or elk, for example, is always called a
>carcass. Dressed or not. In poultry, it is usually called a carcass
>only after it is picked over by common folk. Either way, it is still
>the carcass of the bird.
That all looks fine to me. I don't know how it disagrees with what
I've been saying. Maybe you have me wrong.
>> Actually, what I said is, a roasted turkey is not a carcass... no one
>> calls it that, except religious anti-meat fanatics, in which case it
>> is a misuse of the word.
>
>http://www.cooksrecipes.com/soup/roasted-turkey-carcass-broth-recipe.html
I think I know what you're thinking -- that I call the leftover carcass,
after the meat has been eaten, a roasted bird. Nope.
This is all quite simple, too simple for all us geniouses: What you call
the thing depends on what stage you are in its preparation. It has nothing
to do with postmodernism.
1. live bird -- you call it a turkey
2. dead bird, rotting or saved for later -- you call it a carcass
technically, you could call it a corpse, but this word has connotations
that keep you from doing so (the reason will be left as an exercise for
the extremely bored reader)
note that you do not eat the bird when it's in this condition
3. cleaned bird -- you can call it a carcass... I uniformly have called
it "the turkey" in my own personal experience at Thanksgiving and Xmas
note once again that at this stage the bird still is not fit to be eaten
4. cooked bird -- once again, it's the turkey
definitely dinner by this time
5. what's left after dinner -- a carcass!
you could call it leftovers
>> AND You clearly don't know enough about cooking to realize that a
>> carcass is something that you simmer in water with vegetables and
>> seasonings in order to make STOCK, which is liquid, with all the
>> carcass boned strained out. You never eat the carcass (unless you're
>> starving to death).
>
>If you are making stock, you don't eat what's LEFT of the carcass after
>you made the stock. You use the part of the carcass you want for your
>stock, you throw the other part of the carcass away.
Did you read the recipe you cited? Anything that went into the oven is
fair game for the stock pot once the meat has been eaten.
>The reason you don't call a roasted turkey a carcass has nothing to do
>with it not being one. It is because by roasting it, you have gone to
>step two of using the bird. It is now a roasted carcass. Or more
>palatable, a roasted turkey.
Right. It's not a carcass.
Michael Dix
> >> And you are a moron.
> >You're the moron
> who's the moron here?
Whoever it is, the other one is *having*an*argument*with*a*moron*.
It must be me, since I'm jumping in the middle here.
Geoff Gass
> yes, as a matter of fact
>
> check this out
>
> latest google tally:
>
> email: 73,500,000.
>
> e-mail: 7,210,000.
>
> And here's what I love about the "e-mail" search:
>
> Did you mean: email
>
> do a deja search if you don't get it
>
>
> Wix has totally been used to mop the floor of the dictionary debate room.
Wow, you should be tooting your horn on victories more recent than that one.
Or is this the start of a "wix's worst defeats" thread?
David
> David <w...@enteract.com> writes:
>> G. <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>> no where does it say that a carcass is a cooked bird.
>> Nowhere does it say the that a carcass is not a cooked bird.
> Nowhere does it say that a carcass is not a witch.
That's as meaningless as your first statement, which is what I was
trying to point out by example.
>> It says "carcass bones" which means bones of a carcass. Since the
>> carcass they were talking about is a cooked bird, you lose.
> The quotation says carcass bones, which is an illustration of the
> definition that says that a carcass is "the bones of a cooked bird".
It doesn't say that. What's quoted just below means that the carcass
is the poached chicken from which the bones are taken. "Poach: To cook
in a boiling or simmering liquid."
"Use good chicken stock..made from the liquor from a poached chicken and
strengthened with the carcass bones after carving the bird."
>> That's "carcass bones" as in bones of a poached carcass. It's like
>> saying "bird bones" or "human bones" except in that case it was
>> "carcass bones" and that carcass was poached.
> You don't eat them.
Of course I don't eat the bones, but the bones in that case came from a
carcass that had been cooked.
> You don't eat a carcass.
You ate part of one every time you took a bite of that Thanksgiving turkey.
> Actually, what I said is, a roasted turkey is not a carcass... no one
> calls it that, except religious anti-meat fanatics, in which case it
> is a misuse of the word.
It's not about what people call it. It's about whether what he said is
technically correct. It is. His application of the term was perfectly
acceptable when one considers the effect he was going for.
On the other hand, your application of "religious" is inappropriate
since "vegetarian" does not refer to a member of a religion.
> You try to defend your position with a dictionary you don't respect,
> which cites quotations from cookbooks written in British English, after
> claiming before (email) that British English and American English are
> different enough so that it's irrelevant... who's the moron here?
I stated my position irrefutably with a definition from AHD. I'm just
punching holes in your arguments with definitions that *you* presented.
If you were able to grasp what you read, you wouldn't have used them and
I wouldn't have been able to do that so very easily. To answer your
question... you are the moron.
David
> G <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> check this out latest google tally:
>> email: 73,500,000. e-mail: 7,210,000.
He wishes. His figures are about the ratio of those who failed to retain
much of anything in school to those who did, but we were never arguing
about what was used mostly by the unwashed-masses.
> Wow, you should be tooting your horn on victories more recent than that one.
> Or is this the start of a "wix's worst defeats" thread?
I was going to pass on that bait, but since you kept it alive...
"Email" is in far greater use today than it was when Greg jumped on the
hyphen in my sig... when the ratio was the reverse. He lost that
argument handily, but he considered himself a winner because he managed
to find "email" listed in *one* American dictionary, albeit only as the
second choice. His big coup was when I mistook a bullet for a hyphen on
a smudged copy of that dictionary and said he was wrong.
"E-mail" is still the choice of most editors of mainstream publications.
It's also the main entry in most American dictionaries. You'll find
some of the most well known that still don't even list "email" as a
second choice. You'll enter "email" and get no results in them.
While grammar and the like are irrelevant here so long as you're
understood, there's no point to appearing the ignoramus when you know
better.
It's Greg who thinks bringing up this kind of thing is important, not
I... probably because it's all he has. Of course, once he's out on that
limb, I love sawing it off.
max
> > Nowhere does it say that a carcass is not a witch.
>
> That's as meaningless as your first statement, which is what I was
> trying to point out by example.
I have seen carcasses floating in the Fox River.
Therefore ...
.max
man of science
--
the part of <beta...@earthlink.net>
was played by maxwell monningh 8-p
G.
SSMEG HAS SSPOKEN
G.
>G. <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> David <w...@enteract.com> writes:
>>> G. <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>>>> no where does it say that a carcass is a cooked bird.
>
>>> Nowhere does it say the that a carcass is not a cooked bird.
>
>> Nowhere does it say that a carcass is not a witch.
>
>That's as meaningless as your first statement, which is what I was
>trying to point out by example.
That's as meaningless as your first statement, which is what I was
trying to point out by example.
You didn't address the only meaningful aspect of my post -- that the
OED definition, under which the poached bird quote is listed, in fact
disagrees with the the quote *at the level of specificity you need in
order to support your claim*. The reason you didn't address it (and
true to form you snipped it outright), of course, is that it shows
you're not interested in getting to the bottom of the question, but
rather you're only interested in not looking like you made an error.
David
> You didn't address the only meaningful aspect of my post
I'm so glad to see you admit that all but one sentence of your post was
not meaningful. Now you're down to clinging to just one sentence.
> -- that the
> OED definition, under which the poached bird quote is listed, in fact
> disagrees with the the quote *at the level of specificity you need in
> order to support your claim*. The reason you didn't address it (and
> true to form you snipped it outright), of course, is that it shows
> you're not interested in getting to the bottom of the question, but
> rather you're only interested in not looking like you made an error.
You mean this? "c. Cookery. The bones of a cooked bird, esp. as used
for making stock, etc."
That doesn't alter the fact that the stand-alone statement they put
beneath it indicates clearly that the cooked bird is a carcass. Of
course you snipped what I just wrote about that.
You also snipped the definition from an *American* dictionary while
droning on with your drivel about my misuse of the word. You're
clutching at straws now, Greg.
G.
>G. <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> You didn't address the only meaningful aspect of my post
>
>I'm so glad to see you admit that all but one sentence of your post was
>not meaningful. Now you're down to clinging to just one sentence.
>
>> -- that the
>> OED definition, under which the poached bird quote is listed, in fact
>> disagrees with the the quote *at the level of specificity you need in
>> order to support your claim*. The reason you didn't address it (and
>> true to form you snipped it outright), of course, is that it shows
>> you're not interested in getting to the bottom of the question, but
>> rather you're only interested in not looking like you made an error.
>
>You mean this? "c. Cookery. The bones of a cooked bird, esp. as used
>for making stock, etc."
>
>That doesn't alter the fact that the stand-alone statement they put
>beneath it indicates clearly that the cooked bird is a carcass.
For the fifteenth time, you're misinterpreting the cite. The cite
illustrates the definition, which is -- I guess I actually need to say
it -- the *definition*. If the cite doesn't agree with the definition,
you have two options: blame the editors, or blame yourself. I will
blame you over the editors of the OED.
>Of course you snipped what I just wrote about that.
Oh ah gee sorry!
>You also snipped the definition from an *American* dictionary while
>droning on with your drivel about my misuse of the word.
Not in that last post. Are you really that interested in historical
snippage? I guess you would be, considering....
http://tert.cs.uchicago.edu/wix/
>You're clutching at straws now, Greg.
I learned it from you!
Complicated Man
>For the fifteenth time, you're misinterpreting the cite. The cite
>illustrates the definition, which is -- I guess I actually need to say
>it -- the *definition*. If the cite doesn't agree with the definition,
>you have two options: blame the editors, or blame yourself. I will
>blame you over the editors of the OED.
G-Bone --
Do you realize that Wix is incapable understanding any of this?
G.
Repetition is the key to education.
David
> For the fifteenth time,
Gross exaggeration is a sign of very weak arguments.
> The cite illustrates the definition, which is -- I guess I actually
> need to say it -- the *definition*. If the cite doesn't agree with
> the definition, you have two options: blame the editors, or blame
> yourself. I will blame you over the editors of the OED.
A "cite" isn't worth spit if the illustrations given contradict it,
but you're seeing only that small blurb as the end-all definition of
"carcass" (relating to cooking). It's not even intended to be that, as
the examples below it illustrate clearly.
"Carcass" as defined by American Dictionaries:
"The dead body of an animal, especially one slaughtered for food."
--American Heritage Dictionary
"1: a dead body: corpse; esp: the dressed body of a meat animal."
--Merriam Webster ^^^^^^^
^^^
Read um and weep, OED boy. ^
David
--
If Greg said it, it would sound prissy like "Read 'em" (as
in the sound of the letter "M").
David
>>> For the fifteenth time,
>> Gross exaggeration is a sign of very weak arguments.
> That was satire.
Now that was funny!
> The method used was accentuation[1].
There's a difference between accentuating and fabricating, Greg.
Perhaps you should gone with "for effect". :)
> you don't eat a dressed bird -- because a dressed bird is not cooked
You're priceless. Do you undress your birds before cooking?
> MW:
> 2 : to prepare for use or service; specifically : to prepare for cooking or
> for the table
Words have many uses, but you reject offhand those that don't fit into
your narrow spectrum. Often it's the first definition you reject as in
this case with AHD and MW.
> Food that isn't cooked can be dressed for the table, but it certainly
> won't be the body of a dead animal.
"Carcass" as defined by American Dictionaries:
"The dead body of an animal, especially one slaughtered for food."
--American Heritage Dictionary
"1: a dead body: corpse; esp: the dressed body of a meat animal."
--Merriam Webster
A carcass is still a carcass whether dressed or dressed and cooked.
> OED: 13. Specific and technical uses.
Now you're down to Brittish definition 13! I agree that a carcass may
be dressed for cooking, but you have yet show where it *says* that it's
*not* still a carcass after dressing.
[30 lines about dressing snipped - whew]
> 13. Specific and technical uses.
> a. To prepare for use as food, by making ready to cook, or by cooking
> (also intr. = passive); also, to season (food, esp. a salad).
That one does mention "by cooking".
> This is why the OED rocks -- you see extensive use of the word going
> all the way back to where English was barely recoginzeable,
For that kind of thing it is good, but it's hopeless when it comes to
modern American usage. Nevertheless the uses you quoted first supported
my premise, not yours... especially this one:
* 1963 Hume Downes Penguin Cordon Bleu Cookery 35 Use good chicken
stock..made from the liquor from a poached chicken and
strengthened with the carcass bones after carving the bird.
That's the bones of a cooked chicken, Greg.
> I don't see how anyone (possessing intelligence) could read the cites
> above and not see that a dressed animal is in nearly all uses of the
> word NOT cooked
That's because the "cites" refer to a particular stage in the process.
Even so, the dressed animal is cooked in some of the examples. There
is nothing in what you quoted that *states* a carcass is not still a
carcass after dressing.
> (see esp. the 1885 quotation),
Okay, let's see.
> * 1885 Manch. Exam. 28 May 5/1 The carcase of a..cow dressed ready
> for sale.
Where does that say the carcass of of a cow would not be a carcass if it
were cooked?
> and that dressed salads and vegetables and the like are also not cooked.
Which has nothing to do with the dressed carcass that's ready to pop in
the oven. When it comes out, it's still a carcass.
> They are prepared.
OED is not prepared for American usage or anything about carcasses
since 1963. The 1963 reference was to a poached carcass, by the way.
> Take away from this that a synonym for "to dress" is "to prepare",
> and while "prepare" can mean "cook", the two are certainly not
> bound and in this case is is an error to align them as closely
Take a moment to consider the difference between align (which I'm not
trying to do) and disassociate (which you are trying to do). What I am
saying is that a carcass is not somehow miraculously changed into
something that is not still a carcass by the mere act of cooking it.
> [1] http://www.enteract.com/~tert/humor.html
Unfortunately for you, it doesn't say gross exaggeration is synonymous
with satire.
Anyway, you lost this argument by writing, `Find a definition saying
"cooked" or something synonumous and you will be correct.'
"Poached" is synonymous with "cooked" (see your 1963 OED definition),
therefore I am correct... according to you.
G-Bone
>G. <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>> For the fifteenth time,
>
>Gross exaggeration is a sign of very weak arguments.
That was satire. The method used was accentuation[1].
>"Carcass" as defined by American Dictionaries:
>"The dead body of an animal, especially one slaughtered for food."
> --American Heritage Dictionary
>"1: a dead body: corpse; esp: the dressed body of a meat animal."
> --Merriam Webster ^^^^^^^
> ^^^
>Read um and weep, OED boy. ^
you don't eat a dressed bird -- because a dressed bird is not cooked
MW:
2 : to prepare for use or service; specifically : to prepare for cooking or
for the table
Food that isn't cooked can be dressed for the table, but it certainly
won't be the body of a dead animal.
OED:
13. Specific and technical uses.
a. To prepare for use as food, by making ready to cook, or by cooking
(also intr. = passive); also, to season (food, esp. a salad).
* 13.. Coer de L. 3510 Or ye come the flesch was dressyd.
* C. 1430 Two Cookery-bks. 13 Put yn the Oystrys ther-to, and dresse
it forth.
* 1582 N. Lichefield tr. Castanheda's Conq. E. Ind. iv. 10 b, To
dresse their meate with salt water.
* 1632 Milton L'Allegro 86 Their savoury dinner..Of herbs and other
country messes, Which the neat-handed Phillis dresses.
* 1736 T. Sheridan in Swift's Lett. (1768) IV. 163 We dress them
with carp sauce.
* 1766 Goldsm. Vic. W. xxxii, A very genteel entertainment..dressed
by Mr. Thornhill's cook.
* 1795 tr. Moritz's Travels 240 The sallad, for which they brought
me all the ingredients, I was always obliged to dress myself.
* 1796-7 Jane Austen Pride Prej. (1813) II. xvi. 188 These two girls
had been..dressing a sallad and cucumber.
* 1885 Manch. Exam. 28 May 5/1 The carcase of a..cow dressed ready
for sale.
* 1942 C. Spry Come into Garden, Cook ix. 114 It [sc. an
American-type salad] may contain grape-fruit, orange, pineapple,
grapes, peaches, and so on. Dressed with mayonnaise, it is often
finished off with a sprinkling of ground nuts.
* 1942 C. Spry Come into Garden, Cook 115 In the happy days
when..one might have little melons to serve as a first course, I
have filled them with cubes of their own flesh mixed with diced
cucumber and dressed them with a thin cream dressing.
* 1806 Culina 27 This dish will dress very well with the cheese of
our own country.
* 1858 Jrnl. R. Agric. Soc. XIX. i. 75 Potatoes so grown..dress
badly.
This is why the OED rocks -- you see extensive use of the word going
all the way back to where English was barely recoginzeable, and so you
get a complete, 360-degree picture of that nebulous region known as
the "use" of the word. I don't see how anyone (possessing intelligence)
could read the cites above and not see that a dressed animal is in nearly
all uses of the word NOT cooked (see esp. the 1885 quotation), and that
dressed salads and vegetables and the like are also not cooked. They
are prepared. Take away from this that a synonym for "to dress" is "to
prepare", and while "prepare" can mean "cook", the two are certainly not
bound and in this case is is an error to align them as closely as
smeghead would like to do, for no better reason that to appear correct
when in fact he is completely wrong.
I love the triumphant underscoring (undercarating?), btw.
G-Bone
>A carcass is still a carcass whether dressed or dressed and cooked.
What you *call* something depends on its state. Think about it.
I already went through the various states the bird goes through from
living creature to leftovers (see my other post). You don't sit down
to a turkey dinner and say "pass the carcass please." Never, unless
you're a veggie-nazi. No amount of dict. quoting will explain that --
it's a concept, not a word definition, and even my efforts to approach
the concept from that angle bounce off your thought-proof brain. Do
you have another explanation for why people don't sit down to a turkey
dinner and say "pass the carcass please"??
Tony Atoms
G-Bone <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
Because some of us who eat meat try to maintain an illusion of distance
from the reality of what we are doing. We use of a whole different
terminology to conceal the cruelty of we do: "pass the pork please, yes
that steak was delicious, and, sure, I'd love to stuff my slack and
distended craw with another hamburger."
You can be indifferent to the suffering of the creatures that you
consume - but don't expect the rest of us to partake in your sick
delusions.
Barb Grajewski
On Thu, 13 Dec 2001, Tony Atoms wrote:
> In article <r1aS7.80$w4....@news.uchicago.edu>,
> G-Bone <g...@cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
> > w...@enteract.com writes:
> >
> > >A carcass is still a carcass whether dressed or dressed and cooked.
<snip snip snip>
> You can be indifferent to the suffering of the creatures that you
> consume - but don't expect the rest of us to partake in your sick
> delusions.
Thank you, Tony. Well said.
I really don't want to keep reading an endless debate on carcasses on into
2002.
Why you two continue to debate this question is beyond me.
Screw the stupid OED definitions. We're talking "common usage" here.
And, ask any of us commoners, and we'll all agree that commonly, a carcass
is what's left after you've enjoyed picking the meat off the bones.
You chuck the turkey or chicken carcass in a pot and make soup.
The only other common usage is the one used to describe a useless, lazy
human, as in "getcher damned carcass off the sofa and go wash the dishes".
John Rappe
>>
>Because some of us who eat meat try to maintain an illusion of distance
>from the reality of what we are doing. We use of a whole different
>terminology to conceal the cruelty of we do: "pass the pork please, yes
>that steak was delicious, and, sure, I'd love to stuff my slack and
>distended craw with another hamburger."
>
>You can be indifferent to the suffering of the creatures that you
>consume - but don't expect the rest of us to partake in your sick
>delusions.
If it wasn't for meat-eaters, think of all the self-righteousness
you'd be missing out on.
David
> David <w...@enteract.com> writes:
>> A carcass is still a carcass whether dressed or dressed and cooked.
> What you *call* something depends on its state.
Or the effect you're going for.
> Think about it.
Yeah... you, too.
> I already went through the various states the bird goes through from
> living creature to leftovers (see my other post). You don't sit down
> to a turkey dinner and say "pass the carcass please." Never, unless
> you're a veggie-nazi.
So you admit that the "veggie-nazi" was just making a point.
> Do you have another explanation for why people don't sit down to a
> turkey dinner and say "pass the carcass please"??
Of course. They think of it as turkey, but that doesn't alter the fact
that it's also technically a still carcass and your "veggie-nazi" would
not be incorrect when using the term for effect.
The real issue here is your compulsion to bring up this sort of thing
in the first place. It's never relevant before you mention it. The
speaker's meaning and intention is always clear without your attempt to
divert the issue.
David
--
Wouldn't the guy who says people who say "pass the carcass"
are "veggie-nazis" be a grammar "Nazi"?
Tony Atoms
ra...@neumann.math.uic.edu (John Rappe) wrote:
Rest assured that I would be able to find _plenty_ of other topics to be
self-righteous about.
Tony Atoms
<Pine.A41.4.10.1011213...@tigger.cc.uic.edu>,
Barb Grajewski <barb...@uic.edu> wrote:
Thanks Barb. I just can't understand why I cannot stop reading their
posts? Perhaps it is the train wreck syndrome or something - no that is
not it, at least a train wreck is interesting.
Complicated Man
>ra...@neumann.math.uic.edu (John Rappe) wrote:
>
>> If it wasn't for meat-eaters, think of all the self-righteousness
>> you'd be missing out on.
>
>Rest assured that I would be able to find _plenty_ of other topics
>to be self-righteous about.
Tony, I don't think it's that easy. There aren't easy analogs of
"dead cow" in other domains anymore, at least for you. Try it. This
self-righteousness is successful because the direct relation between
food and caste survives. It makes it easy to cop a moral attitude,
even though, objectively speaking, you are pretty much on the same
level of food snobbery as most of chi.eats.
Demeaning someone else's food--generally by expressing disgust--
is the royal road to advertizing your superior caste. I mean you
can't reliably withhold your womens with so many acquiring their
own minds (and funds), and you can't criticize other people's
religions or customs on moral grounds since you are irreversibly
a middle class fuddy-duddy. What else is left.
Complicated Man
>The only other common usage is the one used to describe a useless, lazy
>human, as in "getcher damned carcass off the sofa and go wash the dishes".
It's spelled "fatass".