Yet the book claims that his judicial votes are generated by an "objective" interpretive methodology, and that, since it is objective, ideology plays no role.
Yes that definitely is extremely dumb yes.
Also noteworthy:
A sandwich does not have to have two slices of bread; it can have more than two (a club sandwich) and it can have just one (an open-faced sandwich). The slices of bread do not have to be thin, and the layer between them does not have to be thin either. The slices do not have to be slices of bread: a hamburger is regarded as a sandwich, and also a hot dog--and some people regard tacos and burritos as sandwiches, and a quesadilla is even more sandwich-like.
Nobody regards tacos or hot dogs as sandwiches. Otherwise, sure.
I feel like there must be some possible way to work out a deal where instead of being on the Supreme Court Scalia just makes the languagelog people sad all the time.
I'm not sure I buy that a hamburger is a sandwich, but a hamburger bun is not slices of bread.
For reasons that I can't quite fathom, all serious people seem to agree that court-packing is a bad idea. Fine, okay, whatever. And it doesn't seem likely that Supreme Court justices will be term-limited any time soon. So would it be such a terrible idea to make it a less awesome job? What about making them work harder, for longer, and with fewer clerks? I mean, really, isn't there some way to clear out the dead wood? (For thee but never for me, of course.)
7: because Eggplant's clerks told him so, that's why. Also, the Constitution.
7: Because while a bun is bread, it is a thing created on its own, that was never a part of a greater loaf, and therefore cannot ever be considered a slice.
Also, you know what else is a thing? That lawyers, even left-leaning ones, used to begrudgingly defend Scalia. "Oh, he's a pain in the ass, but he's so brilliant. And he really stands by his beliefs." Not any more, though. I wonder if Scalia changed, the legal profession changed, or if Bush v. Gore changed everything (along with 9/11, obviously).
9: how does one get the hamburger into the bread, pray tell?
6: When I'm President, I'm packing that fucker fuller than a Dagwood Bumstead sandwich.
10: it was Chappaquiddick that did it.
11: Are you suggesting that the 2 halves of the bun are slices? Blasphemy!
It's sliced bread. It's part of a loaf comprised of two heels.
9. ?? But each bun half was once part of a greater loaf that comprised two slices.
I'm not sure I buy that a hamburger is a sandwich
Madness.
Of course, you are correct regarding the second part. The two halves a hamburger bun are no more "slices" of bread than the two halves of a large loaf would be slices, if one sliced (!!!!) the loaf in half.
I think I'm in agreement with Sifu, but my poor writing has misled him. I'm not very fluent in legalese.
A slice of bread is not just any piece of bread obtained by slicing, is what I'm saying. The piece itself must be a "slice".
A bun is not a loaf! It is a bun!
One can slice a bun in two, but the two resulting parts are not slices, they are the top and bottom of the bun.
17: at what level of division can the formely connected portions properly be called slices?
It's a shame that Justices Burger and Frankfurter did not serve on the Court at the same time.
21: Is a Big Mac a sandwich because the bun is sliced in three?
22: they sandwich Golberg and Fortas.
22, 24: At least Justices Black and White overlapped.
Of course a hamburger is a sandwich. A particularly awesome sandwich, but a sandwich nonetheless.
I would also be inclined to say that hot dogs are sandwiches.
Tacos, burritos, or quesadillas, though? Not sandwiches, just in some kind of universality class containing sandwiches. Similarly with gyros, shawarma, and so on.
Although, this Wikipedia page makes me really happy.
A sandwich does not have to have two slices of bread; it can have more than two (a club sandwich) and it can have just one (an open-faced sandwich). The slices of bread do not have to be thin, and the layer between them does not have to be thin either.
My favorite legal-writing sentence I have ever read in a professional capacity is the following: "There is no lobster in the lobster burrito."
That lawyers, even left-leaning ones, used to begrudgingly defend Scalia.
One of my top 38 pet peeves!
The linked article is really great, btw. Posner has a pretty bad hit/miss rate these days, but when he's on, he's on. He's been beating this drum for years and really goes for the kill here.
A wrap is a sandwich that uses a tortilla as bread. A soft taco is a wrap made with meat and cheese. A soft taco is a sandwich.
A hard taco is not a sandwich. That would be madness.
27, 29 -- But, in a contract banning stores in a mall from selling sandwiches, would you conclude that the term "sandwich" unambiguously does not include burritos or hard tacos? In fact, that it's so unambiguous that a judge can decide what it means based on cherry-picking a dictionary definition and rolling with whatever his personal sense of a sandwich? Instead of looking, at, say, why the parties included the sandwich provision in the first place, and what kinds of things they might reasonably have expected to be included in the term "sandwich."
That's what Scalia is advocating, and it's super stupid (as well as contrary to the practice of most lawyers and courts, including Scalia himself when he wants the right result).
It's too bad, because I do sort of like Brian Gardner as a legal writing guy.
Tortas are totes sandwiches. But wraps?
Anyway, Halford, why should we listen to you on the topic of sandwiches? Obviously you have a bias here.
I think we really need to go back to the founder's intentions, here. What would the Earl of Sandwich have recognized as a sandwich?
27.--That Wikipedia page makes me very happy as well. I had forgotten how much I loved those Italian sandwiches with the crusts cut off.
But, in a contract banning stores in a mall from selling sandwiches, would you conclude that the term "sandwich" unambiguously does not include burritos or hard tacos?
As a devotee of the sandwich, I define it as a savory, filling thing I can eat while walking and hold in one hand. It is sometimes a taco, sometimes a quiche, and sometimes a hotdog. It is defined in opposition to savory foods that are liquid, like soup dumplings, and savory foods that require utensils, like noodles, and savory foods that are expensive.
I define it as a savory, filling thing I can eat while walking and hold in one hand.
So a PB&J, not being savory, is out?
I mean, they probably just wanted to keep stores from selling 2 girl/1 guy sex combos in the mall.
The peanut butter and bread is savory. Jam goes on everything.
A soft taco is a wrap made with meat and cheese.
What about soft tacos that have neither meat nor cheese?
Ice cream sandwich? Jelly sandwich on raisin bread?
Oh, fuck, what about s'mores?!?
What about soft tacos that have neither meat nor cheese?
You mean warm tortillas?
What about that BBQ that they serve on a slice of white bread?
What if the store sold deli meats and sliced breads and little sandwich packets but they were unassembled?
At least we can safely say that the McDLT qualified, if other burgers are in.
Good lord people -- the Double Down.
If tacos are in, are Choco Tacos?
42: Not listed on the Wikipedia page! Someone must remedy this.
What if you had one slice of bread inside two other slices of bread?
What about pop-tarts? Hot pockets?
Important: what about subs? Subs clearly have a single piece of bread, so would seem to fall more on the taco/burrito/wrap side of things.
... and yet are called submarine sandwiches.
Except where they aren't! If the shop was in Boston, could it sell grinders? Could they sell hoagies in Philly? Heros in New York? Po' Boys in Louisiana? Po' Boys not in Louisiana?
Is there really a bright-line distinction between an open-faced sandwich and a pizza?
Would a Steak Bomb run afoul of both sandwich bans and weapons laws?
You mean warm tortillas?
Why do you hate rajas tacos, JM?
Submarine sandwiches are governed by admiralty law, so the rules are totally different.
There has to be a golf fringe on the flag in the courtroom when you try a case about submarine sandwich.
S'mores are not sandwiches. They properly belong to desserts, which are separate from sandwiches. S'mores are more akin... to a dwarf pie.
So ice cream sandwiches are not sandwiches?
54: no. it's a frozen pie that's cut in an atypical shape with extra crust.
53: I don't think any ingredient in s'mores tastes like dwarves.
you know what else is a thing? That lawyers, even left-leaning ones, used to begrudgingly defend Scalia.
Elena Kagan on Scalia --
"He is the most colorful, the most intellectually playful, the most provocative member of the court, and he is indubitably its greatest writer," Kagan said, introducing Scalia. "I think he is the justice who has had the most important impact over the years on how we think and talk about the law, and that is whether we agree or disagree with many of his positions."
Now you may return to your regularly scheduled sandwiches
it's all about the dwarf:marshmallow ratio
Hey, I just read the case. Here's the key conclusion:
Given that the term "sandwiches" is not ambiguous and the Lease does not provide a definition of it, this court applies the ordinary meaning of the word.3 The New Webster Third International Dictionary describes a "sandwich" as "two thin pieces of bread, usually buttered, with a thin layer (as of meat, cheese, or savory mixture) spread between them." Merriam-Webster, 2002. Under this definition and as dictated by common sense, this court finds that the term "sandwich" is not commonly understood to include burritos, tacos, and quesadillas, which are typically made with a single tortilla and stuffed with a choice filling of meat, rice, and beans. As such, there is no viable legal basis for barring White City from leasing to Chair 5.4 Further, PR has not proffered any evidence that the parties intended the term "sandwiches" to include burritos, tacos, and quesadillas. As the drafter of the exclusivity clause, PR did not include a definition of "sandwiches" in the lease nor communicate clearly to White City during lease negotiations that it intended to treat burritos, tacos, quesadillas, and sandwiches the same. Another factor weighing against PR's favor is that it was aware that Mexican-style restaurants near the Shopping Center existed which sold burritos, tacos, and quesadillas prior to the execution of the Lease yet, PR made no attempt to define, discuss, and clarify the parties' understanding of the term "sandwiches." Accordingly, based on the record before the court, PR has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits.
I think the stuff about the term not being ambiguous is pretty stupid. Guess what judge, Webster's dictionary defines ambiguous as "Open to more than one interpretation" which the word "sandwich" clearly is as applied here. It's ambiguous! On the other had the other reasons seem just fine to me and in that context it probably made sense to think of "sandwich" as not including "burrito."
48: Yes, but it does mean you can no longer legally sell a grilled cheese sandwich.
My sister (as a child) thought it was funny that Captain Cook was killed in the Sandwich Islands.
This is silly. Why must we have rigid phylogeny of sandwiches? Hamburgers are platypusses.
65: legality recapitulates phylogeny.
59: I say nice things about my colleagues, even the ones I despise, all the time, too. It's expedient.
Does the Double Down predate Tracy Jordan's Meat Machine? ("Meat is the new bread!")
Not that I despise any of my colleagues. They're all great! Except for the ones who are the greatest!
It's too bad, because I do sort of like Brian Gardner as a legal writing guy.
I used to feel this way, too. Then I followed Garner on Twitter and found him unbearably pompous. So I doubly enjoyed Posner's takedown.
I checked and Kansas has apparently moved to outlaw cockfighting since that case. Now I won't be making a quick visit there next time I'm visiting family.
Since when are sandwiches "usually buttered"[interrobang]
those Italian sandwiches with the crusts cut off
I think we should start a movement for less panini and more tramezzini in North American food offerings.
(Although the real problem is how panini has been defined in North America.)
74: panini bread is the bread on panini sandwiches; what's the problem?
My adviser bought our lab a panini press because I have no idea. I am confident nobody has ever used it.
Personally I would have gone for a coffee machine first.
The delirium currently setting in on the California Assembly floor bolsters my concern as to the determimability of legislative intent: https://twitter.com/#!/search/calegbingo
72: This used to be standard! Roast beef with butter! UGH.
75: Not always. I've had lots of toasted sandwiches on regular sliced toasted bread that have been claimed to be panini. Albeit the biggest offender I can think of is a cafe on a university campus in Canada.
80: oh I was joking about the Italian definition of "panini". What you mention is obviously a grave problem as well.
I am knocked a-kilter by the use of "albeit" at the beginning of a sentence.
82: It's probably an incorrect usage too. But I'm tired of saying "although."
Garner on Twitter and found him unbearably pompous
Yes, this. Although, he noticed one time that I correctly hyphenated a compound adjective, and he was so delighted that he did give me a free copy of his book Modern American Usage, which is genuinely useful.
83: I realy heavily on "That said,"
I bet if he ever saw 84, my grammar would appall him enough that he'd demand his book back.
I used to work with someone who would start roughly every third sentence, when writing, with "albeit," and also would invariably use the word "however" when "but" was called for. Albeit this made for a very distinctive writing style it seemed ungrammatical to me however not to him.
I try to save "Albeit" for sentences that are kind of like fragments or asides. Or for where it actually makes sense.
The important point is MORE TRAMEZZINI
I too am a "that said" abuser. "What's more," also.
"Which is to say" is my secret shame.
||
Survived my first (half-)day of office work in over a decade! Well, ok, just training for a four-day temp assignment. But still. I'm going to sort that mail, and handle that reception desk, so well.
|>
93: Piece of cake, trapnel. They'll be astonished by the perceptiveness of your helpful remarks.
I just searched Shakespeare for "albeit" and got 14 results, of which 12 are followed by full sentences with verbs, and two begin a sentence.
No one mentioned a wish sandwich?
Man, I was extra stupid in this thread! Do I get bonus pay?
I just searched Shakespeare
Man, names for search engines just get weirder.
93: First comes the office job, next comes working for the MPAA. Welcome.
93: First comes the office job, next comes working for the MPAA. Welcome.
Close! My temp assignment is actually at a for-profit academic publisher. I hope you're happy.
Oh my god. I love it so much. I feel like I should burst through the walls of your place of business like the copyright Kool-Aid man with a big "OH YEAH."
That would be pretty funny, but please don't.
There was an entertaining moment in the middle of the day when the receptionist, a recent Cal grad, having already explained how to fill in for her on her lunch breaks, started to make general getting-to-know-you conversation; when I admitted to being a PhD dropout, she confessed that she'd been thinking about grad school, but decided against it "because I don't want to end up like you." She then appeared mortified to have actually said that aloud, but I reassured here that it was fine, that I got that a lot (and that she was being wise). The kids are alright!
She sounds socially gifted enough to thrive in most PhD programs.
She said it in a very nice way. Which may sound implausible, but she comes across as a generally kind person, so the line was almost charming--it was so obviously a gaffe.
Watching the GOP convention (so you don't have to) and clicking back and forth between unfogged and facebook, I am reminded of this. Ah, those were the days, were they not?
92 "Which is to say" is my secret shame.
I've mentioned it here before, but nothing can be worse than my Soc prof first year of college who prefixed "There is a sense in which" to every statement he made. He also responded to almost every student comment with "let's bracket that" and it seemed to alternate between meaning "let's ignore that" and "let's focus on that" in a way that confused me.
I don't think I've ever uttered "which is to say" aloud. And I'm aware enough of the tic in my writing that, aside from blog comments, I edit it out. Also, if someone ever says "let's bracket that" in my presence, I promise to puke. I'm reminded of "let's put a pin in that", but I can't remember from which piece of pop culture ephemera that phrase originates.
I'm reminded of "let's put a pin in that", but I can't remember from which piece of pop culture ephemera that phrase originates.
I was just going to post something along the lines of 106. Come on, x., you're not too old for her.
So when are you two going out?
I hate you.
I've mentioned it here before, but nothing can be worse than my Soc prof first year of college who prefixed "There is a sense in which" to every statement he made.
Wait, did you have, uh, a junior political theorist who later went to Canada? He was, sort of, my undergrad mentor, and, amusingly enough, is at this very moment engaging in a discussion on FB about which bits of academic-ese are acceptable versus eye-gougingly awful. "Always already" is a bone of contention.
110: no, it predates the birdification of everything.
Come on, x., you're not too old for her.
Yes I am. Or rather, she's too young for me.
My ten-year-old tells me it's from Bolt. It's what the nefarious agent says to the child star every time she has an idea. I'm old.
It must be hard though, as a professor, having to have many polite ways to say: you are on crack, crazed first years!
Yes I am. Or rather, she's too young for me.
Sure, like you're the one to be discriminating.
112.last: I don't think so? I think he was an anthropologist, and Google isn't helping to figure out what happened to him. His name was kind of Swedish-looking.
Wow. Lots of comments to unpack here.
"let's put a pin in that"
Not to be confused with "let's put a ring on that".
Sure, like you're the one to be discriminating.
Why not? It's not necessarily an age thing, but I couldn't possibly connect with someone for whom the future was full of promise and potential, or who hadn't already failed at something monumentally important to them in a way that caused them to deeply question the value of their existence. I looked into her eyes, and I didn't see despair, so: nope.
118: yeah, guess not. I suppose "there is a sense in which" isn't all that rare among social science / humanities academics.
Or rather, she's too young for me.
Ask her to wear a loose-fitting, long dress made of gingham and to call you 'hun.'
Unless that's what all the teenagers are wearing in California. I'm not suggesting you do anything illegal.
126: Ok, I laughed out loud at that one.
Or rather, she's too young for me.
What? The half + 7 rule says she's just the right age for you!
Also (reading that article) wow Scalia is atrocious. Is he really held up as an exemplar?
What? The half + 7 rule says she's just the right age for you!
I thought that was minima/maxima, not optima.
I thought that was minima/maxima, not optima.
It has apparently been used for different purposes at different times.
131: Minima are optima. Or rather, there is a sense in which they are.
||
Absolutely no one I know on Facebook has said anything indicating they are watching the Republican convention. On Twitter, everyone in the country, film critics, comedians, food pundits, people who are famous for blogging about the San Francisco Giants, everyone is giving a minute-by-minute update of the festivities. So strange.
|>
Facebook briefly grouped together a whole bunch of posts and told me that "n friends have posted about Romney". Now none of those posts are appearing for me. I'm ok with that.
Rob in 61 gets it pretty much right. The specific dictionary cite is absurd, as others have noted ("A reuben is clearly not a sandwich, your honor; no butter" "So ruled!"), but pretty much only someone being annoying - like a kid brother putting a finger 1/8" from his sibling's face and chanting, "I'm not touching you" - would claim that the category "sandwich" clearly includes burritos*.
On a related note, AB & I inadvertently got a local restaurant** in trouble on a similar issue. We reviewed it and explained its pork belly entree as being "basically bacon", which caused a fuss with the nearby (highly Orthodox Jewish) owners of a bagel stand that had exclusive rights to sell bacon in that locale.
* it is true that a burrito is more sandwich-like than some other foods; on a test that showed pictures of a PB&J, a reuben, a burrito, and a poached fish, and required one to circle "the 3 sandwiches" everyone would include the burrito, but no one would think, "this is a typical and natural use of the term "sandwich".
** as it happens, the place the last mini-meetup occurred, after the anthropology lecture
Seemingly everyone I know on FB has said something indicating that they watched Clint Eastwood at the Republican convention and that it was a sad spectacle.
the nearby (highly Orthodox Jewish) owners of a bagel stand that had exclusive rights to sell bacon in that locale
Wait, what?
its pork belly entree
Wait, Pittsburghers are okay with pork belly now?
"There is a sense in which" is the unspoken preface to everything an intelligent person might ever say.
126 -- family resemblances! Fuzziness! The open texture of the law etc etc.
The politicization of the US judiciary seems quite debilitating.
a bagel stand that had exclusive rights to sell bacon in that locale.
What kind of bizarre, Satanic restraint of trade is this? It's like something from the court of Queen Elizabeth I, when she was always rewarding her latest favourites by granting them monopolies in sack or raisins or brocade or whatever.
In much of northern England a sandwich is a filled roll by default. Which is to say, it can also be between two slices of bread, or open or club if it wants, but if you go into a sandwich shop and ask for one it' will come between two halves of a bun/bread cake/bap or whatever they're called locally.
There was a court case in England in the late 1960s where the judge asked for clarification that the sandwich under discussion had included both butter and jam. He felt that this was sufficiently unusual that it needed to be made explicit. On the other hand I, as a teenager, had always eaten butter on my sandwiches (although I often don't any more). So I guess the practice became widespread some time between Hizzonner's youth and mine, maybe shortly after WWII.
A hamburger, it seems, ought to be a sandwich, because a roll with hot cooked meat in it is a sandwich if the meat is (for example) bacon.
As a devotee of the sandwich, I define it as a savory, filling thing I can eat while walking and hold in one hand. It is sometimes a taco, sometimes a quiche, and sometimes a hotdog.
Jackmormon is clearly barking mad. A quiche is a sandwich? Chicken drumsticks are savoury, filling, and can be eaten one handed while walking - is a chicken drumstick a sandwich? A pork pie? A roasted ortolan? A raw herring?
In the name of God, Jackmormon!
144: There was a court case in England in the late 1960s where the judge asked for clarification that the sandwich under discussion had included both butter and jam.
What, like a jammie dodger?
143: I don't know any details, but restuarant sits on what is technically a public park, as does the bagel stand. The bagel stand was there first. I assume there are long term leases with clauses and numbered paragraphs.
There's a bagel stand, a hot dog stand, a Chinese food stand, a vegan stand, and a frozen banana stand.
What, like a jammie dodger?
Over here a jammie dodger is a kind of cookie. This was a common or garden jam buttie (two slices of bread with butter and jam between them).
I distinctly remember that when I was a child older people used to refer to hamburger sandwiches.
79: Ham with gruyere cheese on a buttered baguette. Delicious!
Buttered gruyere cheese on ham. Delicious and grain-less!
150. In 1961 it was apparently possible to refer to hot dogs as frankfurter sandwiches. (And also to release records with an extraordinary level of double entendre for that date.)
148: A VEGAN STAND? SEE? EATING ANIMAL PRODUCTS IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE! AND NOW THERE IS CANNIBAL FOOD FOR SALE IN PUBLIC PARKS!
A roasted ortolan?
Very hard to walk down the street with a napkin over your head.
122: Well than she--or really her male equivalent--would have been too young for me when I was 9.
Very hard to walk down the street with a napkin over your head.
Islamophobe.
155: just have somebody trail you by a leash.
122: There seems like a perfectly simple solution to that -- someone's got to divest her of every scrap of hope for the future sometime. Why shouldn't that lucky someone be you?
She means with words, not a Saw IX kind of thing.
|| So my brother just became FB friends with UNG. My immediate reaction is hurt and anger. Wouldn't mind some advice on what a reasonable reaction would be and whether any sort of response would be appropriate.|>
and whether any sort of response would be appropriate
I would say no. UNG is the father of his niece, and someone he has known a long time. Lots of people will accept a FB friend request from anyone they're not actively feuding with. Try not to read too much into it.
161: People have pretty widely varying criteria for who gets to be FB friends. I'm a bit of an FB friend slut and accept nearly all friend requests. Could be your brother is similar. They do have a connection after all. Best to say nothing.
In other FB news, the damn software that makes suggestions keeps suggesting I friend the asshole my ex cheated on me with. Seeing his ugly mug on the side of the page as I try to catch up with friends is not good for my mood.
I think if you click the x by the suggestion, that person doesn't get suggested any more. It used to be that way, anyway.
Also you can affirmatively block that person. Then they won't show up anywhere (comments, etc).
164 is correct. I figured this out awhile back when FB kept persistently suggesting I befriend read. I was all like, "Do you even read the internet?"
On the previous topic, if it's any help, The British Sandwich Association defines a sarnie thusly:
Any form of bread with a filling, generally assembled cold - to include traditional wedge sandwiches, as well as filled rolls, baguettes, pitta, bloomers, wraps, bagels and the like, but not burgers and other products assembled and consumed hot. Hot eating sandwiches are also included.
British commenters may wish to enter a prize draw on the putative 250th anniversary of the invention of the sandwich. First prize: a holiday for two in the Sandwich Islands, putative birthplace of the President of the United States.
What's a traditional wedge sandwich? I think of a wedge as more of a geometric solid than a foodstuff.
Di, if you actually block him, you won't be able to see who's friends with him or anything and I believe he won't be able to see you or anything about you. I did this for my abusive ex (although at first my policy was to not be friends with anyone who accepted his friend request) and now I am a little paranoid because I can't see who his friends are. Probably not any of you, but I know people from other parts of my life. I don't think UNG is actually making this part of a weird gaslighting harassment campaign, so it might be better to just block him and not know.
Tortas are totes sandwiches.
Alas, but no. A torta is made on a bolillo, a little roll cut in half. I'm afraid the structural commonalities of a roll and a bun preclude tortas from entry into the sandwich kingdom, if we are to accept the strictures which previously disqualified the hamburger.
What's a traditional wedge sandwich?
I wondered about that, but I think it just means triangular - two square slices of bread with stuff in between, cut across the diagonal.
170: I am being consistent. See 27.1 for my judgment on hamburgers.
169: In this case, blocking UNG is useless unless I block Rory as well. She is required to provide them with her passwords to pretty much everything (though I have little doubt she has found ways to circumvent their need to scrutinize her every move... ) I'm not even worried so much about what UNG does or doesn't see. I just have strong feelings about the taking of sides, loyalties, and the like in this case. Which may be wrong or irrational or unfair, as Blume points out, but I don't really know how to make myself stop feeling betrayed.
A friend of mine just got divorced. Should I unfriend her ex since I know him only through her?
174: I would ask her how she feels about it, personally. Every divorce is different. She may want you to maintain the friendship so you can spy!
174: Ask her if she's got a preference?
That's a funny position to be in -- a very old, very close friend got divorced a while back, under circumstances where bad behavior was pretty evenly split between the parties, and her husband who was a warm, outgoing kind of guy, made a bit of a bid to stay friends. I felt sort of bad about not staying in touch, because it wasn't meant as a judgment that he was a bad person, just that we only knew him through her, there was absolutely no question about which of the two of them we cared about more, and there just didn't seem to be any good reason for us to actively stay friends with him.
there just didn't seem to be any good reason for us to actively stay friends with him.
You liked him, maybe?
I'm really not in close touch with either of them except through FB. His FB feed is a bit annoying. For some reason, he decided to keep his "Blue's Name" as his FB name for much longer than anyone should stick with a half-assed internet meme.
I'm a terrible, cold, unpleasant, prickly, lousy person. I did like him -- he was a high-energy, fun guy to have around, and if I ran into him on the street I'd be delighted to say hi and catch up. But I didn't like him enough to make the post-divorce loyalties even a little unclear, regardless of the faults or lack thereof on either side.
(And the dude had friends: again, high-energy, outgoing, charming, so having us not return phone calls didn't leave him languishing. The interaction just stuck in my mind because it did feel a little questionable not being supportive to someone I liked who was going through a rough patch.)
Ajay, if I found a place that sold me pork pies and drumsticks to go, for cheap and no falderol, that would fill the sandwich-shaped void in my life.
When you say 'sandwich-shaped', is that wedge shaped?
181: Yes, wedge-shaped, like a quiche.
\\ Is there some of that high pitched noise that adults can't hear at the start of the new Frank Ocean album. It sounds like a silent bit to me, but my kids were covering their ears. I can't Google any confirmation though.>>
184: Not the pieces JM carries around in her hands.
I make perfectly spherical quiches.
Plus, if you accelerate the oven to near the speed of light, you can keep the food warm until you're ready without overcooking.
Yeah, but at near-light speeds, the quiche tends to get a bit heavy. And even though it seems like doesn't take any longer to cook, by the time it's ready to serve, your dinner guests died hundreds of years ago.
I doubt very much that a good pate brisee would result from cooking at the speed of light.
Dictionaries claim it to be a perfectly acceptable variant spelling.
A distant third in the folderol, falderal, falderol derby. But ahead of the pathetic "folderal".
There's a song with that word in it, right? I mean, there definitely is one stuck in my head right now...
There's a song with that word in it, right? I mean, there definitely is one stuck in my head right now...
Well, maybe not quite falderal. But close. Here, you can have it in your heads too:
falderee faldera
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx0r0R6q5YQ
197: Ignore the mountain of discarded folderol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVqArOogY-c
Dammit! I think I may as well just work.
And in Robert Hunter's source, it was tol de rol: http://artsites.ucsc.edu/GDead/agdl/moon.html#crow
Seemingly everyone I know on FB has said something indicating that they watched Clint Eastwood at the Republican convention and that it was a sad spectacle.
I have to say that it didn't seem especially bizarre or strange or any of the other descriptors that I've been hearing. Eminently mockable, but not "theater of the absurd." It was just a comedy routine instead of a speech.
206: Yeah, but the only thing that was funny about the humor was how inappropriate it was for the occasion. Jokes like "he can't do that to himself" are an old old part of stand-up routines where you only hear one half of a conversation. (Think of Bob Newhart's old records.) It wasn't a funny joke. It was funny that he was telling that joke to an audience with a lot of conservative Christians, introducing a candidate who apologizes for his harsh language if he uses the word "heck."
The other thing that was really really weird about it, is that he didn't really endorse conservative policies or candidates. He starts out talking about how no one thinks there are conservatives in Hollywood, but, he says, "They're there." Not "We're there." "They're there." People like Jon Voight.
Then, when he criticizes Obama, it is for not getting out of Afghanistan fast enough, and distinctly implying we shouldn't have been there in the first place. (And who started that war?)
He never even said "I'm proud to introduce the next president of the United States, Mitt Romney."
(Think of Bob Newhart's old records.)
The Saturday Night Live where he was a Post Office official interviewing an unseen disgruntled employee was great.
I'm a pinko pantywaist liberal and all, but I just couldn't get past the ugliness of Clint's fantasy to stand above a seated BHO and lecture/hector/school/son him.
I didn't think it was a good stand-up routine.
Having heard a fair amount about it before seeing it, I was expecting something more disjointed and outlandish. There were falsehoods a-plenty and much of it lacked sense; it just wasn't quite as Grandpa Simpson as I anticipated.
I am thoroughly delighted with the stir it's caused.
Plus, if you accelerate the oven to near the speed of light, you can keep the food warm until you're ready without overcooking.
But if you do that, Lorentz contraction will flatten the quiche out, which rather countermines the plan of making them spherical in the first place.
214: It will still be an ellipsoid, rather than a cylinder.
