www.ditl.org

Mikey wrote:

IanKennedy wrote:made from some form of mulch that used once to be a potato, or at least the vast majority of them are.

Huh. We have those, mostly sold under the brand name "Pringles." They look like completely uniform potato chips, but are made out of some emulsion of mashed-up potato bits. In an interesting bit of irony, they are referred to over here as "potato crisps."

No, I'm talking about fries made out of reconstituted potatoes. Yes, like Pringles (which we do have here) but the shape and size of fries.

Crisps here are what you call chips. Thin slices of real potato fried to be crispy, most often flavoured.
Chips here are what I think you were talking about, thick cut 'fries'.
Fries here as as they are there, but often made out of reconstituted potatoes rather than just cut from a whole spud.


Fries


Chips


Crisps

I'm now hungry and going for lunch.

Ah. Over here, "fries" refers to any of the different types of long strips of potatoes, subsequently deep-fried. Sometimes, an adjective will be added - what you call "fries" might be called "shoestring fries" here - though I've never heard of them being made from potato pulp (but Burger King makes theirs with a coating of potato starch on them that gets so nice and crispy... ) - while the thicker wedges may be called "steak fries" or somesuch. Sweet-potato fries are becoming more popular too, and not a moment too soon.

Mikey wrote:OK, I just found out that Cutty Sark is made in London. While it's certainly not my choice in whiskeys, it struck me as rather odd - a Scotch, named after a Scottish ship which was in turn named after the Scottish-vernacular nickname of a Scottish character in a poem by the historical poster-child for being Scottish... made in London. I guess that's why it sucks.

Wiki would seem to disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutty_Sark_%28whisky%29

as does a perhaps more authoritative source:

http://www.scotchwhisky.net/blended/cuttysark.htm

In other news, the comments left on Yahoo News stories are truly epic.

IanKennedy wrote:Wiki would seem to disagree with you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutty_Sark_%28whisky%29

as does a perhaps more authoritative source:

http://www.scotchwhisky.net/blended/cuttysark.htm

My bad - it is currently made in Scotland, but was invented/founded in London.

I actually let myself get drawn into a debate about gay marriage.

It's amazing, I've been called everything from a commie, a liberal, democrat, fag, sodomite, going to hell, hater of god, damn near everything. I cannot get people to understand that their own personal moral beliefs have no legal standing in court and that baring a good solid secular reason for doing so you can't deny a group of people their rights just because your deity of choice doesn't like them. It's amazing, saying that a secular government can't use your interpretation of your religion as a basis for legislation apparently means I smoke pole.

And NO ONE has said a word about the fact that I dislike the government being in the business of legislating who can be married at all.

Wow. Of all the things I would think could be applied to you, "liberal" or a synonym isn't one of them.

The irony is that a true conservative should be supporting their right to get married. Minimizing government getting into our lives (defining who can get married, etc) and following the law of the land as it should be interpreted. Instead, the court overturning a clearly unconstitutional law is "social engineering" and government needs to step in to defend marriage.

It's amazing what is being read into the fact that I think California's Prop 8 is legally indefensible and should be struck down.

Well, that's why you're not in the GOP any more. The term "conservative" has long since lost its true meaning of support of reserved powers and opposition to large-scale federal involvement, and has become instead a synonym for the quagmire that is now the Republican Party.

I bugged out of it not long after that. Someone said, "Well if you let gays marry then you'll have to let polygamy in."

I replied, "So?"

Got some Bible thumping "think of the children" response.

Here's a tip guys, when Polygamy comes up in debate with Bible thumping idiots don't point out that pretty much every major male figure in the old testament had more than one wife so God's probably not all that up in arms over it. It's like tossing a molotov cocktail in a keg of gunpowder.

Tyyr wrote:I bugged out of it not long after that. Someone said, "Well if you let gays marry then you'll have to let polygamy in."

I replied, "So?"

Got some Bible thumping "think of the children" response.

Here's a tip guys, when Polygamy comes up in debate with Bible thumping idiots don't point out that pretty much every major male figure in the old testament had more than one wife so God's probably not all that up in arms over it. It's like tossing a molotov cocktail in a keg of gunpowder.

Yeah, I think the problem with polygamy is that it usually ends up making one or more of the wives feel inferior, and usually involves them being treated poorly eventually.

The biggest reason Bible thumpers use it is because most of them are uninformed, they only know what they want to know in order to prove their point. Nothing more, any argument with one is pointless. I would know mostly because I'm a slightly more informed one...

However, I don't have a problem with it due to the Bible, I'm just not into polygamy.

No, the real problem with ploygamy is twofold:

a) fatigue.

b) If you've been married, I'm sure you'd agree that there are times when one wife is one too many.

Imagine putting up with PMS twice a month, or even worse two at once.

Mikey wrote:No, the real problem with ploygamy is twofold:

a) fatigue.

That's why it's only a good idea if you hook up with bisexuals.

b) If you've been married, I'm sure you'd agree that there are times when one wife is one too many.

True, though you could possibly use one wife as backup when dealing with the other, depending on what set her off.

I find that womenfolk tend to band together against a common enemy - men.