|
Your entire conceit that the fact bread is sliced is, frankly, disastrous, and the training criteria you put forward are further evidence of your stupidity and ill breeding.quote:Is a hamburger a sandwich? yes Literally none of these things that you replied 'yes' to are sandwiches in any way. Let us instead of your unsystematic rambling, consider a more rigorous framework based in the best traditions of language and guided by real-world examples that would allow for a strict, unqualified system sandwich to then allow for further non-conforming forms through prefixed modifications. A system sandwich is a food item that consists of two slices of fresh bread, cut from a loaf, faces aligned but spaced no further then twice their combined crust-heights so as to contain immediately edible food items, which extend to no more than an eighth of the face-length past the crust edge in any face axis and no more than a half of the crust-height past the inner face of any slice in the crust axis. This system sandwich is the only thing that can be considered a sandwich in the unqualified sense. If I ask for "a sandwich", and you show me a hot dog, you are clearly wrong. If I ask for "a sandwich", and you show me a muffin, you are clearly wrong. Even if I ask for "a sandwich" and you give me a stale bread sandwich, you are clearly wrong. Now we can allow non-conforming sandwiches to use qualifiers: a toasted sandwich, for instance, is a sandwich that has been toasted as a single entity. A toast sandwich is a sandwich made of toasted rather than fresh bread but otherwise contains fresh ingredients. An open-faced sandwich is a sandwich minus the ultimate bread slice. And so on. The use of qualifiers to denote non-conformance is a long-celebrated tradition in the language, allowing a linguistic and instructive richness through the magic of simile without compromising the purity of the platonic (system) Sandwich. Note that it is common to use a contents descriptor prefix (CDP), either as a complete list (eg: lettuce, cheese, and tomato sandwich) or as a general class (eg: salad sandwich). Use of a CDP does not in any way invalid that sandwich's system status, although obviously it would be preferable to leave the contents descriptor as a postfix (a sandwich with lettuce, cheese and tomato) as that prevents listeners from being confused about the system status, and it allows serving staff to start in the correct headspace. As a further usage note, if a CDP is used it is preferable to use it BEFORE the NCQ: "a lettuce, cheese and tomato toasted sandwich" rather than "a toasted lettuce, cheese and tomato sandwich"; because it allows for ambiguity for the listener: is it a toasted sandwich with lettuce, or a system sandwich with toasted lettuce? chaosbreather fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Nov 10, 2015 |
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
As I said, there is a simple smell test that can be applied to any purported sandwich definition: if you order a sandwich, and you get a definition-compliant food item, do you feel you have got what you ordered? And that test belies an underlying truth that powers the System Sandwich Definition: "a sandwich" is the only way to order a system sandwich. If your definition includes, say, a taco and a burrito, how would you indicate that you want a system sandwich to a vendor that sells both? How would they label them? It's clear operationally, linguistically, historically and practically, my strict SSD is the one to beat.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:The difficulty is that in vernacular english, a sandwich is both a specific item and general classification of items. A hamburger is a sandwich, but does not spring to mind when thinking of the granular sandwich, which would be more of a tuna salad or ham and cheese sandwich. Ordering a single sandwich is thus meant to refer to the lowest level of the sandwich heirarchy, as there are many terms and qualifiers which would specify the exact sort of sandwich. This is because people rarely have need to refer to the class Sandwichae in daily conversation, though the overall meaning can shift in the proper context. This difficulty you speak of is entirely of your own making, and is totally avoided with the SSD. Making the true sandwich strictly defined so that the class of sandwich is contains only conforming system sandwiches we totally avoid your sloppy statements like 'a hamburger is a sandwich', which is totally non-self-consistent as I just demonstrated. Truth should hold coming or going; as I said, if you ask for a sandwich and it isn't a sandwich, then it was never a sandwich. Anything else you get the madness that you spew in every post, you might as well define 1 = 0. Your contention that a hamburger is somehow 'greater' or a superset of a sandwich in some nightmare hierarchy (trying to falsely impose psuedo-biological terms like 'sandwichae') is demonstrably incorrect. A sandwich contains fresh sliced bread. That is incontrovertible, because that's what you get when you ask for a sandwich. A hamburger does not. Therefore it is not a superset. It is a related lunch product, sandwich-esque, it is a patty sandwiched in a bun, you could even call it a hamburger-style sandwich. But it is not an unqualified sandwich because if you were to ask for an unqualified sandwich and receive a hamburger you would not have got what your ordered signifying that that label is incorrect. "Finish your burger", never "finish your sandwich". "That was a good burger", never "that was a good sandwich". There is no natural instance where one would ever use an unqualified sandwich to describe or indicate a hamburger except in a descriptive or prescriptive way, as in, "it's like a sandwich, but...", except of course in futile attempt to evade the unnatural laws of men rather than submit to the endless truth of the Universe.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Then you agree that when I bake fresh rolls, cut them in two, then stick seared ground beef between the two halves, I am eating a sandwich? Otherwise you've revealed a profound weakness in your supposedly authoritative means of classification. I certainly do not agree! If you think that a roll that is sliced in two the same as two slices of a 'loaf of bread' then you have problems no sandwich will solve. A loaf of bread and a roll are markedly different concepts, using different ingredients and baking techniques. Your attempt to conflate two totally separate bakery products that are different in size, shape, ingredients, density, mass, cost, utility and name is totally futile. If a roll was the same as bread, when I rock up to my favourite local sandwich bar their first question could not be "on bread or a roll". Furthermore if sandwiches were not made of bread the bread sold to make sandwiches would not be sold as 'sandwich bread' or bread with a 'sandwich cut'. You are on a path to a nightmare.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
The op attempted to, unsuccessfully, declare there was some sort of biological nomenclature at play but he, just like you, have only proved it would inappropriate bordering on insanity. Zoological classification is horrendous even with animals with a causal evolutionary link. Add the nightmare of misunderstood parallel evolution, the mind-numbing history and politics involved in a 'stamp collecting' science and the administrative nightmare of keeping everyone on the same page and you begin to see the true horror that awaits zoologists. Real zoologists are desperately searching for alternative systems of classification, hoping probably in vain that genetic science may save them. It should be obvious to the reader that the last thing anyone should be advocating is the application of this vexatious ball of lies to anything that doesn't strictly require it, and the only sensible framework of use is the rigorous, provable, consistent, sane, simple, 1:1 logic of the SSD.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 21:53 |
|
|
Totally wrong. Your use of the word proper first indicates how your argument is flawed before it starts. An open faced sandwich is not a sandwich. Furthermore your baffling and misleading explanation is flawed: if I ask for a sandwich and I am presented with one whose slices were cut from different loaves, then it is clearly still what I asked for. If it is missing the lid slice, however, it is clearly not the entire sandwich I ordered.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 15:18
|
|