advertisement


Spaghetti

Also olive oil and Parmesan is great. I remember talking to a chef about this and he told me his favourite was pasta with only olive oil, but that the quality of both, and of the water used for cooking, had to be perfect.
This is a joke. The water? from the tap? was crucial? Oh! my ribs have burst asunder...

Did he charge 50 quid in his restaurant for this gourmet delight?
 
Also olive oil and Parmesan is great. I remember talking to a chef about this and he told me his favourite was pasta with only olive oil, but that the quality of both, and of the water used for cooking, had to be perfect.

paul.

olive oil!
next thing you'll be introducing garlic into the equation and offending the english even more with all these swarthy culinary practices.
 
Vuk, here's your straw man.

a paraphrasing to emphasize the logic:

"why would people who are not poor want to eat food that is the staple diet of poor people."

That's not what he said. That may be what you chose to hear, but it's not what he said.

no, i did not. glad to hear your explanation.
Here it is, and I have a perfect level of comprehensi on of what each of you has said.
 
That's not what he said. That may be what you chose to hear, but it's not what he said.

if you look at the semantics, it's exactly what he said. are you to explain the difference between what you think the two claims are? you really haven't done that and neither has cav. the 2 of you keep repeating "no" without any sort of explanation.


Here it is, and I have a perfect level of comprehensi on of what each of you has said.

where is it? in invisible font?
 
The difference between the two claims is blindingly apparent. The fact that you refer to them as 2 claims is illustrative. Read them again.
 
This is a joke. The water? from the tap? was crucial? Oh! my ribs have burst asunder...

Did he charge 50 quid in his restaurant for this gourmet delight?

Yes, believe it or not, the taste of the water used for cooking pasta has an influence on the taste of the pasta. This should be obvious, since once cooked about 50% of its weight is water. Or ask anyone who drinks whisky with water, they will unfailingly tell you what kind of water they prefer.

No, he did not offer this in his restaurant, it was for his own pleasure.
 
P.S. I've been faithfully trying to follow The Great Vuk/Cav Spaghetti Battle but must confess I'm completely lost. It is like those diagrams of naval battles with dotted lines that curl and cross and re-cross each other all around the page with microscopic notes at certain points.
 
Pasta based altercations can be among the most serious. Minor disagreement about boiling time and water quality will turn into a Palermo knife fight.
 
Some years ago a Neapolitan shot his wife dead with his shotgun. At his trial he explained that he had acted in a state of temporary insanity, because his wife had given him overcooked, i.e. soggy, pasta three days running. He got attenuating circumstances.
 
Some years ago a Neapolitan shot his wife dead with his shotgun. At his trial he explained that he had acted in a state of temporary insanity, because his wife had given him overcooked, i.e. soggy, pasta three days running. He got attenuating circumstances.

Not extenuating?
 
if you look at the semantics, it's exactly what he said. are you to explain the difference between what you think the two claims are? you really haven't done that and neither has cav. the 2 of you keep repeating "no" without any sort of explanation.
OK, now that it's not midnight and I'm not half asleep, here goes:
Cav said:
I can understand that the impoverished of the world would have, as their staple diet, a flour and water based product such as pasta. What I cannot understand is why anyone who does not have to eat it chooses to. Same goes for rice.
This statement can be interpreted in 2 ways that I can think of. One is the way that you saw and paraphrased as
"why would people who are not poor want to eat food that is the staple diet of poor people."
Cav says that he didn't mean this, and I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. The alternative meaning of what he said, and what I first read it as, can be paraphrased as "Poor people may have to live on a flour and water based product such as pasta. I can't understand why you would do so if you can afford something better and tastier".

This is why I'm saying that the 2 sentences are different, and this is why I have accused you of raising a straw man, because in your paraphrased statement you remove the ambiguity in Cav's original sentence. My paraphrased sentence also removes any ambiguity but is an alternative interpretation.

Cav didn't *necessarily* say what you think. If you want to think that he did, that's up to you. I don't think so.
 
I don't care who said what.. but referring to spaghetti in the singular is, I believe, incorrect. There's a clue in the 'i'. An Italian work colleague always referred to spaghetti as 'them'. I presume a single 'stick' is strictly a 'Spaghetto' ?
I would value informed input on this most pressing issue.

I suppose there's always a subtle distinction between the uncooked item(s) .. and the prepared dish.. in much the same way that we would refer to a single potato as a 'potato', but a number of potatoes cooked and mashed becomes 'mashed potato'.. not usually 'mashed potatoes'

It's a conundrum of a mystery of a puzzle shrouded in an enigma.
 
I don't care who said what.. but referring to spaghetti in the singular is, I believe, incorrect. There's a clue in the 'i'. An Italian work colleague always referred to spaghetti as 'them'. I presume a single 'stick' is strictly a 'Spaghetto' ?
I would value informed input on this most pressing issue.

I suppose there's always a subtle distinction between the uncooked item(s) .. and the prepared dish.. in much the same way that we would refer to a single potato as a 'potato', but anumber of potatoes cooked and mashed becomes 'mashed potato'.. not usually 'mashed potatoes'

It's a conundrum of a mystery of a puzzle shrouded in and enigma.
Derived from the Latin spaghettum.
 
aLLuukZh.jpg
 
OK, now that it's not midnight and I'm not half asleep, here goes:
Cav said:

This statement can be interpreted in 2 ways that I can think of. One is the way that you saw and paraphrased as

Cav says that he didn't mean this, and I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. The alternative meaning of what he said, and what I first read it as, can be paraphrased as "Poor people may have to live on a flour and water based product such as pasta. I can't understand why you would do so if you can afford something better and tastier".

This is why I'm saying that the 2 sentences are different, and this is why I have accused you of raising a straw man, because in your paraphrased statement you remove the ambiguity in Cav's original sentence. My paraphrased sentence also removes any ambiguity but is an alternative interpretation.

Cav didn't *necessarily* say what you think. If you want to think that he did, that's up to you. I don't think so.
Correct.

Vuk thinks he is kind of a Wittgenstein, whereas he is more of a Kant....
 


advertisement


Back
Top