What's the matter with kids today? Chapter 1: Table Manners

1246

Comments

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Mostly I buy frozen fruit. Iceland do a lovely kiwi, pineapple and mango mix. It defrosts great and is half the price of fresh fruit. (More vitamins too)
  • How the hell do you eat improperly? Shove it up your nose? Take it as an enema?

    Eating is supposed to be a sensual experience. If touch isn't part of the meal, then fuck properly.
  • Yeah, but - I don't like peach skin, so being informed I must eat the fruit I am being offered with a knife and fork, choosing a peach means I can peel the skin and eat the nice flesh without wearing the juice.

    Normally, at home, I eat most fruit in my hands and find peeling bananas with a knife and fork ridiculous as you can eat them cleanly and tidily without covering yourself in banana. Otherwise the only sensible way to eat ripe peaches and nectarines is over the sink, along with the flesh from mango stones.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    And, yes, I've eaten fruit with a knife and fork too.
    There's no other way to eat melon and still be considered civilized.
  • Fuck that shit.
  • Fuck that shit.
    Best post on this thread.
  • Melon: slice it into segments and get in there. Watermelon or honeydew. If you don't need a bath afterwards, you're doing it wrong.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    According John Betjeman (and certain of my relatives), fish knives are non-U - see Phone for the fish knives, Norman - Wiki explanation, here ...
    These are for cutting up the cooked piscines on the serving platter, not for individual usage.


  • To eat a mango you need a sharp knife and a shallow bowl:

    1. Slice off two large pieces of the mango, skin on. Cut as close to the pip as possible, slicing off the sections of the fruit that correspond to the flat parts of the pip. You will have three pieces. Two will be large and fat, and the third will be the pip with a thin circle of skin around the edge.

    2. Rest the skin of one large fat piece in the palm of your hand and cut a criss-cross pattern into the flesh, being careful not to pierce the skin of the mango. Fold the skin in on itself so that squares of flesh appear to pop out of it. Lift the skin and flesh to your mouth and consume, holding the skin in your hand. Position the bowl to collect any errant juice. Do not consume the skin, which can be discarded after the flesh is consumed.

    3. Repeat the process in step 2 with the second large fat piece.

    4. Take the pip and cut a small incision in the thin circle of skin. With your thumb and forefinger, pull the skin off. You will find that it detaches easily down to the stalk. Place the skin in the bowl for later processing. Repeat the process with the other side of the incision, holding the pip in the way which seems natural to you.

    5. Holding the pip, use your teeth and tongue to consume any fragments of fruit remaining on it.

    6. Returning to the strips of skin removed in step 4, hold each strip as if it were dental floss and remove any flesh with your teeth and tongue.

    7. Place the pip and any pieces of skin in your compost receptacle. Tip any juice collected in the bowl into your mouth, and use your tongue to lick the bowl clean.
  • Bananas seem, well, simpler ...
  • How to eat a mango (Mexican child version):
    Obtain mango from mom
    Undress and get in shower
    Peel and eat mango with bare hands
    Shower, dress, and carry on
  • All you need to eat fish is either standard knife and fork (for meatier fish) or two forks for things like Dover Sole, etc.
  • As this belongs here, as per Hostly ruling:
    RooK wrote: »
    When my son asks me, "Can I eat that cookie?" indicating one on the counter, if I answer "No." he could logically disprove that by eating the fucking cookie. What I need to answer my smart-ass spawn is, "You might be able to, but you may not."
    That would be due to your promulgation of the incorrect usage. All respect to your gran, just because your were improperly taught doesn't make it correct.
  • And this one:
    fineline wrote: »
    I suspect RooK doesn't give two hoots about usage of 'can,' but he sees it's
    important to Rossweisse, and that everyone is disagreeing with her, so he is being a friend to her by agreeing and insulting everyone who disagrees, for some camaradarie and laughs, so she doesn't feel ganged up on. I suspect if it were the other way round, if Rossweisse were saying people use 'can' in a variety of ways in the States, and everyone were saying that is rude and wrong, he'd be calling us all snobs, and saying 'can' has different meanings. I don't think he's being a dick. Just pretending to be a dick.
    In other words, we are being bullies and Rook the virtuous defender? Interesting and possibly correct. However, grammar Nazism is bullying itself, which is one reason I object to it. As is etiquette.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    edited October 2018
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    That would be due to your promulgation of the incorrect usage.
    So, you incorrectly point to an article claiming that it shows that I am incorrect; I'm not sure if the humour inherent is intentional. Still, it merely states that using "can" for permission is not incorrect - and I agree. It also states that using "may" for permission is considered more polite - and I agree.

    I also assert that it has additional value of clarity when dealing with pedantic assholes my deceased paternal grandmother. But said value is deeply circumstantial.

    What's fun is watching people give all the fucks about their lazy speech patterns¹, and being completely incapable of admitting that some clarity is lost for the sake of expediency.

    ¹ Excellent use of "promulgation" aside, ironically.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Excellent trolling, RooK, but I don't for a moment believe you're stupid enough to believe the cack you're spouting.
  • edited October 2018
    "I'd like a cookie"
    "It'll ruin your appetite for supper"
    "No it won't, I'll prove it"
    Takes cookie, eats supper.
    Later there are beans and peas in the washing machine.

    "Why are there beans and peas in the washing machine?"
    "Because I didn't want to eat them and put them in my pocket"
    "You said if you ate a cookie before supper you would eat all of your supper"
    "No, I said it wouldn't ruin my supper. I don't like beans and peas."
    Long conversation which goes no where, but concludes with the advice that if you don't want your veg and put them in your pocket, you should take them out before putting clothes in the laundry. Somehow "can" ad "may" never come up in our conversations.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    And this one:
    fineline wrote: »
    I suspect RooK doesn't give two hoots about usage of 'can,' but he sees it's
    important to Rossweisse, and that everyone is disagreeing with her, so he is being a friend to her by agreeing and insulting everyone who disagrees, for some camaradarie and laughs, so she doesn't feel ganged up on. I suspect if it were the other way round, if Rossweisse were saying people use 'can' in a variety of ways in the States, and everyone were saying that is rude and wrong, he'd be calling us all snobs, and saying 'can' has different meanings. I don't think he's being a dick. Just pretending to be a dick.
    In other words, we are being bullies and Rook the virtuous defender? Interesting and possibly correct. However, grammar Nazism is bullying itself, which is one reason I object to it. As is etiquette.

    Eh? I'm not sure how you read into this that we were being bullies. I am not calling myself or anyone else a bully. However, the way Rossweisse was expressing herself made it seem like she felt bullied - as people sometimes do when everyone disagrees with them, especially when the disagreement is expressed in the forceful language often used in Hell. She's the one who used the word 'bullies.' But of course, feeling ganged up on or bullied doesn't necesarily mean people are being bullies. I suspect KarlLB felt bullied by Rossweisse first, and this is why he expressed his feelings more strongly.

    And yes, I thought RooK was taking her side. He will hate this, but I thought it was rather sweet! He says he wasn't. Who knows.

    And of course bullying can happen on both sides of an argument, regardless of who is 'right.' Of course, people who declare people to be inferior because of how they use English can be seen as bullies - particularly if they have some power over these people. Similarly, as often happens in such debates, people who use the term 'grammar Nazi' can also be seen as bullies, or at least highly insensitive, as they are likening pedantry and snobbery to the Holocaust. *shrugs* In other circumstances, it is possible that Rossweisse might be a bully, as indeed we all might, but in an online forum where everyone except RooK is disagreeing with her, she doesn't really hold much bullying powers - no matter how fierce RooK's insults are!
  • It's good for RooK that his insults are fierce. His reasoning skills as demonstrated in this argument sure as hell aren't.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Well, yes. Fierce insults are a good distraction. I googled goatse and then wished I hadn’t!
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    #missionaccomplished
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    mousethief wrote: »
    It's good for RooK that his insults are fierce. His reasoning skills as demonstrated in this argument sure as hell aren't.
    And yet you, nor anybody else, are unable to refute my argument. Poor me.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    I already refuted your argument. Your circular argument is they can't mean the same thing because choosing one increases clarity. Which it cannot because if two words or phrases mean the same thing, then choosing one rather than the other does not increase anything.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    RooK wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    It's good for RooK that his insults are fierce. His reasoning skills as demonstrated in this argument sure as hell aren't.
    And yet you, nor anybody else, are unable to refute my argument. Poor me.

    You didn’t really have a new argument, or anything I hadn’t already addressed. You were late to the party.

  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    fineline wrote: »
    ...Eh? I'm not sure how you read into this that we were being bullies. I am not calling myself or anyone else a bully. However, the way Rossweisse was expressing herself made it seem like she felt bullied - as people sometimes do when everyone disagrees with them, especially when the disagreement is expressed in the forceful language often used in Hell. She's the one who used the word 'bullies.' But of course, feeling ganged up on or bullied doesn't necesarily mean people are being bullies. I suspect KarlLB felt bullied by Rossweisse first, and this is why he expressed his feelings more strongly. ...
    No, I specifically called KarlLB a bully, because he is one, as demonstrated by many posts in the "Share the Road" thread and elsewhere. He's an Angry Man who expects his opinions to be taken as Universal Truth, and lashes out when that doesn't happen. This is just fallout from a long line of his posts, including those on this thread.

    Otherwise, while I think that you're wrong on this question, I am well aware that this is Hell, and that you can call me any wrongheaded name you please. Enjoy!

  • RooK wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    It's good for RooK that his insults are fierce. His reasoning skills as demonstrated in this argument sure as hell aren't.
    And yet you, nor anybody else, are unable to refute my argument. Poor me.
    Fine. Your argument is rubbish because people use can in context. And that context clearly points to whether it is permission or ability being addressed. Language is full of words that are contextual, the ones that put the most twists in knickers seem to be ones like may. Insistence on its use is the same elitist bullshit as where to place the proper fork to eat humming bird’s tongue.
    Can is a perfectly serviceable word for both permission and ability. May is only “more polite” because the self-imposed guardians of proper deem it so. May is a foppish hanger-on for those who would look down their noses at others. Likely because they have nothing else better.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...Can is a perfectly serviceable word for both permission and ability. May is only “more polite” because the self-imposed guardians of proper deem it so. May is a foppish hanger-on for those who would look down their noses at others. Likely because they have nothing else better.
    Are you being serious, or just trolling again?


  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Nothing else better than a nose? Surely not so.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    ...Eh? I'm not sure how you read into this that we were being bullies. I am not calling myself or anyone else a bully. However, the way Rossweisse was expressing herself made it seem like she felt bullied - as people sometimes do when everyone disagrees with them, especially when the disagreement is expressed in the forceful language often used in Hell. She's the one who used the word 'bullies.' But of course, feeling ganged up on or bullied doesn't necesarily mean people are being bullies. I suspect KarlLB felt bullied by Rossweisse first, and this is why he expressed his feelings more strongly. ...
    No, I specifically called KarlLB a bully, because he is one, as demonstrated by many posts in the "Share the Road" thread and elsewhere. ...

    Ah, I misread you. You said 'Karl or another bully' and I somehow read it as 'Karl or other bullies' and I thought you felt we were all bullying you. I'm glad you don't feel this. I disagree with you on the can/may thing, but I don't want my disagreement to be experienced as bullying, even in Hell.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited October 2018
    An opinion of me shared apparently only with, well, yourself, Rossweisse.

    Your definition of "bully" appears to be "doesn't automatically accept my corrections".

    Which I find somewhat amusing given what you have to say about me. There is a saying that the faults we most despise in others are those we also see in ourselves. It seems appropriate here.

  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...Can is a perfectly serviceable word for both permission and ability. May is only “more polite” because the self-imposed guardians of proper deem it so. May is a foppish hanger-on for those who would look down their noses at others. Likely because they have nothing else better.
    Are you being serious, or just trolling again?
    As a test, provide the purpose of may beyond my derisive definition.

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Seems simple to me - ‘may’ is about permission, ‘can’ is about ability.

    What am I missing here?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    Seems simple to me - ‘may’ is about permission, ‘can’ is about ability.

    What am I missing here?

    That this isn't actually how "can" is used by English speakers in many dialects and registers.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Boogie wrote: »
    Seems simple to me - ‘may’ is about permission, ‘can’ is about ability.

    What am I missing here?
    Nothing that I can see.

    @KarlLB, yes, you're a bully. I've just lost patience with you. I've had a rough few weeks (my cancer has advanced to the point that I'm confined to a wheelchair, for starters, so I'm even less able to be virtuous by your lights - no hope of riding a bicycle on the sidewalk for me!), and I'm tired of your crap. You can be a self-righteous jerk all you like, of course; this is Hell, after all. Enjoy yourself!

  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    What's the matter with Shipmates today? Chapter 1: Gratuitous Insults
  • If you don't like the swearing, you can (or is that may?) all just fuck off.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    If you don't like the swearing, you can (or is that may?) all just fuck off.
    How shall we fuck off, O Lord?
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Be it done unto me according to thy word.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Fine.
    Fine.
    Your argument is rubbish because people use can in context.
    Agreed. People also litter, so this is hardly persuasive.
    And that context clearly points to whether it is permission or ability being addressed.
    Clearly? Always? Fascinating. Then answer my question about the 1-legged man.
    Insistence on its use is the same elitist bullshit as where to place the proper fork to eat humming bird’s tongue.
    Guilty as charged. Though, for reference, I'm elitist because I'm better than most.
    Can is a perfectly serviceable word for both permission and ability. May is only “more polite” because the self-imposed guardians of proper deem it so. May is a foppish hanger-on for those who would look down their noses at others. Likely because they have nothing else better.
    True - AND because it has some utility for clarity. For assholes my dead paternal grandmother elitists.

    Thank you for conceding. Unlike mousethief's black knight impersonation.
  • RooK wrote: »
    Thank you for conceding. Unlike mousethief's black knight impersonation.
    Isn't he cute, folks? Please tip your server.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    I am, in fact, adorable.
    Which is merely one facet of why I'm better than most.
  • Imagine, if you can, a 1-legged man with a crutch hobbles up to a person standing by one side of a rickety and swaying suspension bridge without railings. When the 1-legged man asks, "Can I cross the bridge?" - what do you think he's asking?
    So, is the one-legged man stupid? Does the person standing by the bridge have more knowledge of the one-legged man’s abilities than he does himself? Do one-legged men assume people standing by bridges are the bridges’ custodians?
    It is a ridiculous question posing as a conundrum, bless your heart.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    This discussion is getting a bit surreal!

    There's always ambiguity. Even if he used 'may' - he could be joking around, he could be imitating someone, he could be being snarky (all of which are more likely in general conversation than using it seriously as an adult*). He might be painting crosses on the roads for some reason, and asking if he can paint one on the bridge. He might be a priest, talking about making the sign of the cross. Context is always key, and you don't know context completely unless you are in the situation, and even then, you might have to ask for clarification, which is a normal part of communication. You can't obliterate ambiguity.

    *Just thinking... in the UK, 'may' for a child is asking permission from an adult who might say 'no' - asking in a kind of deferential 'you're the adult, I'm the child' way, often kind of dependent on the adult's whim. Not at all the same sort of situation as (going back to the original context of this discussion) an adult going to a coffee shop and asking a fellow adult to make them a coffee, knowing full well that this fellow adult can't reasonably refuse. You're talking as fellow adults, so it's a different vocabulary, based on the connotations of words, rather than a narrow literal meaning.
  • fineline wrote: »
    You can't obliterate ambiguity.
    No, one cannot. And even Rook could probably find a real situation in which may was instantly the more clear word.

    However, this:
    *Just thinking... in the UK, 'may' for a child is asking permission from an adult who might say 'no' - asking in a kind of deferential 'you're the adult, I'm the child' way, often kind of dependent on the adult's whim.
    isn't extremely dissimilar to those insisting on may as permission v can as ability. It is about control. That is the root of the differentiation inherent in etiquette and "proper" speech. That a left-handed, midweek, broiled prawn fork might have a design practicality doesn't change that its evolution is still separation of the classes. So is the insistence on using may v. can.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Imagine, if you can, a 1-legged man with a crutch hobbles up to a person standing by one side of a rickety and swaying suspension bridge without railings. When the 1-legged man asks, "Can I cross the bridge?" - what do you think he's asking?
    So, is the one-legged man stupid? Does the person standing by the bridge have more knowledge of the one-legged man’s abilities than he does himself? Do one-legged men assume people standing by bridges are the bridges’ custodians?
    It is a ridiculous question posing as a conundrum, bless your heart.

    Nah, it's a trick question! It's the bridgekeeper's job to ask the questions, not answer them!
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ...It is about control....
    No, it is not. It is about clarity, and, for those who care about such niceties, good manners.


  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Dave W wrote: »
    Nah, it's a trick question! It's the bridgekeeper's job to ask the questions, not answer them!
    Rumbled.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    @fineline said -
    You can't obliterate ambiguity.

    Yes, but you may try :wink:
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Boogie wrote: »
    @fineline said -
    You can't obliterate ambiguity.

    Yes, but you may try :wink:

    Heh, indeed, and I do fully believe it's important to try. However, so far, saying 'Could [or can] I have a soy cappuccino, please, extra dry so it's mostly froth and a tiny bit of liquid,' has not caused any ambiguity whatsoever in any coffee shop I've been to. And has caused no offence either. :smile:

    Obviously it differs according to location and situation, and if I went somewhere where this was seen as incredibly rude, I would adapt, in the same way that I would burp after my meal if I went to a place where it was bad manners not to. But 'May I' would actually sound weird where I live, kind of like I was being consdescending, rather than addressing the baristas as equals. In the adult world, I literally only hear it from posh people using it in a kind of condescending way. I'm not posh. It would sound weird from me. I have no desire to be consdescending. So I don't use it. Simple.

  • Anyone who thinks a soy cappuccino is not offensive needs to go outside and give themselves a good talking to.
This discussion has been closed.