PaulMB
pfm Member
Just to be clear, I was joking.I am not responsible for how others interpret a simple statement.
I do not think class, if such a thing exists these days, is to do with wealth.
Just to be clear, I was joking.I am not responsible for how others interpret a simple statement.
I do not think class, if such a thing exists these days, is to do with wealth.
This is a joke. The water? from the tap? was crucial? Oh! my ribs have burst asunder...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.
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.
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."
Here it is, and I have a perfect level of comprehensi on of what each of you has said.no, i did not. glad to hear your explanation.
That's not what he said. That may be what you chose to hear, but it's not what he said.
Here it is, and I have a perfect level of comprehensi on of what each of you has said.
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?
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.
OK, now that it's not midnight and I'm not half asleep, here goes: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.
This statement can be interpreted in 2 ways that I can think of. One is the way that you saw and paraphrased asI 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.
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"."why would people who are not poor want to eat food that is the staple diet of poor people."
Derived from the Latin spaghettum.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.
Correct.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.