g.johnson

Posthitis is an anagram of 'I post shit'. Which many members will certainly recognize.

Thank you! Now the next question: Does this refer to the penis of a specific animal or are they all collectively called pizzle? I knew I'd have to consult the OED eventually: The organ that Arabella (my sort of woman) throws at Jude (the Obscure) to attract his attention is usually described as a pig's pizzle (Hardy was more coy).

That link told me more than I needed to know about pizzle rot.

My gratitude to Jim Leff is tempered by the fact that I met Majumdar through Chowhound.

Well spotted. For a bonus of 10 explain the signature.

She seemed to do pretty well for a victum. () Although it's true her ambition was greatly helped by her celebrated beauty - damn men: She died in poverty after the deaths of Nelson and William Hamilton.

I haven't been in years but the Lamb in Lamb's Conduit* Street used to be a good pub and isn't far from Euston. *Pronounced kundit by the literate.

More photos courtesy of jaybee and Yvonne.

Over-critical implies that you're finding fault with something that you have previously enjoyed. Jaded implies that you no longer find the previously enjoyable experience satisfying. Though I realize that there's a similarity, the former is an intellectual position, the later an emotional one (if you will).

You don't think it would be possible to show that BD had more 'social impact' than HB?

It is a good question. And it certainly takes more to get me excited about food than it did even ten years ago. But I'm not sure that that's because my standards have become higher or because I've become over-critical (even though I may have become more critical). I think it's because I've become jaded. The compensation is, I think, that when I do encounter the FMJD, I appreciate it more than I would have done then.

Since proteins are a major constituent of all living things, fruits and vegetables do contain a lot of protein. It's just that they contain more carbohydrates.

Glad to oblige. The article says that browning is by a completely different mechanism.

Just had another look at the Organic Consumers Associaton site. The scientific literature they quote is old – mostly from the 60s and I couldn’t see anything later than 1982. A lot of work must have been published more recently, but since they don’t quote it, I conclude that it shows that irradiation is safe.

How about this? Not making claims that it isn't hysterical, but would be interested to know before I take it all in, as Cabby would say. A quick skim through their page of "scientific evidence" reveals a mixed bag. For example they say, correctly I believe, that irradiation creates free radicals in food and that free radicals are harmful. However, they provide no evidence that free radicals remain in irradiated food more than transiently, which I think unlikely given their reactivity. Similarly they claim that irradiation won't work because lettuce pick up E. Coli through their root systems. The logic seems screwed however: irradiation is the only process that will kill bacteria within the organism. Washing certainly won't. On the other hand this article, claiming that irradiation only kills harmless bacteria and not harmful ones, seems well researched though I don?\'t know the background. So, a mixed bag. Treat with caution.

From the first article: Well that was the excuse. Those of us in the biz think that it was really because Radiologists were scared that a lucrative examination would be taken over by Nuclear Medicine departments.

Though I think there are legitimate concerns about irradiated food, that website is full of hysterical exagerration, half truths and unsubstantiated allegations. Sorry.

I can?t claim to be an expert on Chinese food, but I got no sense of fusion at all on Friday. I thought all the food was excellent but the mains, particularly the chicken and the shrimp, were the real standouts. The dim sum were good, but the mains were exceptional. DSGG might not quite replace Grand Sichuan as my favorite Chinese but it was damn close and pleasantly different from GS.

An extreme example but even so I'd prefer to use 'eccentric' or 'ill-informed' and reserve 'wrong' for "2+2=5", "the earth is flat" and "Napoleon won the battle of Waterloo". That goes double for any less extreme example, prefering steak well done, say.

But why do they prefer it? Is it random? People must go through some routine where they evaluate it before they reach a conclusion don't they? And why do so many people come to the same conclusion? What does the fact that 50 out of 50 newspaper critics could choose the same burger mean? Some of this must prove something. It can't be completely up to the individual palate. Too many palates are alike for that to be the case. Because people with similar backgrounds have similar tastes. I have no objection to the statement "Luger's burger is better than MacDonald's", which means simply that more people like it. Completely uncontentious. What I do think is untenable is the idea that these standards are absolute so that anyone who disagrees is 'wrong'.

You are just delaying the inevitable. We know where each place gets their meat from. What type of quality they buy. What the fat to meat ratio is. How they grind it. What method they use to cook it. We can measure the other components like the bun and the quality of the ingredients used to make it. And we can measure the quality of the condiments. In fact we know all of those things (generally) before anyone ever puts a hambuger in their mouth. Your reasoning is circular. You imply that we know that the Luger burger is going to taste better because of a “better” meat. Yet the only reason that the meat is considered better is because most people prefer the taste. All that proves is that most people prefer Luger's to MacDonald's. The only one anxious to prove anything appears to be you. The rest of us think that proof is quite impossible in matters of taste.

We can't tell from the data you give. He might have a poorly educated palate. Equally he could be an eccentric expert. What we can’t say is that a preference for MacDonald’s is “wrong”. At least not wrong in the sense that the statement “the earth is flat” is wrong.

If we use complexity in the dictionary sense we can asses it objectively – count the number of ingredients, the number of preparations steps, etc. If, however, we use your definition, then we have to make a judgment of whether the the additional ingredients and steps improve the dish. And that is a subjective judgment. Just saying that of all the pasta dishes Yvonne has had at both Babbo and Lupa, the simplest happens to be the one she has liked most. Why do you assume that the pasta at Babbo is better when it doesn't taste as good in this instance?

This helps me enormously. I now know that everytime I see complex written I should really just read good. (And for simplicity less good). 4 + 5i. A good number, I think.