This page is a result of collision of similar memes (which I suppose isn't actually very unusual here). Inspired by this page and some parallel musings, here are some ingredients which, when added to _almost anything_ from the appropriate category, will improve it: = Films - LoPan, baddy from _BigTroubleInLittleChina_ - Lesbians - Long Coats - Sunglasses - SensaWunda - SenseOfWonder - A slow motion bit - CGI -- But in the right places; violence is usually the right place - Philosophical weirdness/existentialism (if it worked for TheMatrix and BladeRunner...) - Someone using a weapon in each hand -- However, note that if you can't have that, no weapons is better than just one -- Where do two-handed weapons fit into this? --- They're acceptable, but really you should have one in each hand _anyway_. We are hoping that many of these elements will show up in the film 'BulletProofMonk'. = Food (Savoury) _Note: should really be combined with the _sweet_ category, but the unadventurous or pedestrian might object._ - Cheese - Bacon - Chilli Sauce - Not anchovies - Anchovies - Marmite and/or soy sauce, depending on tastes - Pepper - Worcester Sauce - Garlic - The absence of chilli sauce -- I disagree. A Nasty kebab without chilli sauce would be inedible. Besides - how would you make a fried egg chilli chutney sandwich? --DM --- Granted on both points. However, not all food is improved by chilli sauce; examples including anything that actually tastes nice to begin with. ----True. That means that chilli sauce, in no way should be in this list. - Mustard - Being smoked (with the notable exception of cheese - smoked cheese is, as a rule, awful) - Not being pasteurised = Food (Sweet) _Note: should really be combined with the _savoury_ category, but the unadventurous or pedestrian might object._ - Tiny marshmallows - Cocoa powder or cinnamon sprinkles - Chocolate -- But it's got to be quality chocolate: the Lindt stuff that's 70% cocoa has to be tasted to be believed. --- It does taste nothing at all like, say, Bourneville. It's not great for actual eating, though - really way too bitter. On the other hand, the Lindt milk stuff is way too gorgeous. Supermarket own-brand premium (ie finest/taste the difference/whatever) 70% chocolates tend to be much more edible, though, probably because they have more sugar. --- Actually, the best chocolate is made by Dolfin. They do a 70% with "feves de cacao" i.e. cocoa nibs & one with "poivre rose" i.e. pink peppercorns. Lindt UK is a shallow mockery of real continental Lindt varieties (my mother likes the selection of "cold" chocolates which chill the mouth as they melt) - TCW = Music - Trumpets -- Unless the music already has mariachi horns, in which case trumpets are superfluous - A vocalist whose sole purpose is to say "yeah", "uh" or similar whenever there's a pause - A tune written by somebody else :-( - James Brown and/or Edwyn Starr (like the "uh" guy but more so) Do please add your own suggestions or categories, and please note the introductory definition (and the laws of logic) and do not attempt to offer counter-examples for any of these ingredients unless you can actually provide a substantial proportion of the entire set under discussion. _Which you can't._ Vegetarians/vegans/Jews/anchoviphobes/those too weak to enjoy chilli sauce etc. can edit out inapproriate foodstuffs _mentally_ rather than than actually. _Man, i'm just looking forward to eating my smoked bacon sandwich with mustard and cheese whilst i dig Edwyn Starr funking out the soundtrack to that scene where Lo Pan and his trench-coated lesbian ninja sidekicks, a katana in each hand, ruin these weird existential philosophers' shit in slo-mo CGI. God damn!_ = The Great And Wildly Offensive Veggie-Fascist-Jew-Swine 'Debate' Anyone who disagrees with any items on this list is wrong; the fault lies with them, not the food in question. _Oi!_ - _Oi seconded._ Bunch of defectives, the lot of them. _Jews defective? Fascist._ GoddamnHippies. I hate hippies. On a more serious note, it takes more than a blanket - albeit implacable - opposition to those who do not bow down in worship before the glory of bacon to be an anti-semite, and more than anti-semitism to be a fascist. _Have you ever watched 'Babe'?_ No. I understood that it was about some irritating talking pig. That's just asking to be cured and sliced if you ask me. Do explain! _Shee, if you're going to be like that I might as well not bother. Tcha, the youth of today... :/_ What? If you irritate me, i kill and eat you. What could be more reasonable than that? _That's bad logic, very bad logic indeed. As bad as saying that everyone who's obliged by their principles or, more importantly, by their religion, not to eat meat or to eat only certain kinds of meat is 'defective'. You can have your own point of view, I can have mine, this being a free country; but I happen to find your opinions reprehensible, not reasoned. Anti-semitism isn't the only plank of fascism, but intolerance is the biggest one. Now *grow up.*_ To the author of the above comment: Oh my. I'm not the originator of the comment that offended you, but I feel that the frivolous intent was plain. That's not to say that the points that you are making are invalid, but they do seem to be somewhat inappropriately vituperative. Describing _'If you irritate me, I kill and eat you. What could be more reasonable than that?'_ as _'very bad logic'_ implies that an attempt to be logical was intended or could be inferred. Given that the comment that gave the offense was part of thread on eating a fictional talking pig, logic was never likely to intrude. Unfortunately, the frivolity on this page seems to be intermingled with a genuine debate on tolerance, acceptable behaviour, etc. leading to misunderstandings (for so I assume it to be) such as this one. There are an awful lot of ironic opinions being expressed on these pages, and though that should not and cannot be a catch-all excuse, it should be considered before getting as heated as you apparently have. If you would like, feel free to delete this comment and yours (WikiIsOpen). I was sorely tempted to trash the whole lot myself, but didn't want to cause further irritation. I hope I've not come across as too dismissive or patronising. I'm just trying to make peace. ModerationShouldBeYourWatchword. I'll sign this to avoid that potentially infuriating anonymity --AW Surely you could argue that anyone who objects to certain foods being eaten is intolerant? Or have I missed the point? (Again) --DM It's a sliding scale. Although canteen personnel might have considered someone who objects to eating certain foods themselves as being unnecessarily obstructive in the past, these days the majority of people in what I hope we can still call free countries acknowledge that any person has the right to refuse to eat anything they choose (hunger-strikes and the like are a different issue, let's keep them separate). Now, however, if you widen the picture, and look at, as you've said "anyone who objects to certain foods being eaten" _i.e. by persons not themselves._ Is it intolerant for a vegetarian to disapprove of or object to other meat-eaters eating meat? Good question. The answer is that it is no fixed answer. In certain circumstances, no it's not in the least intolerant. It's reasonable, for instance, for the residents of any accommodation to forbid any activity they like on the part of non-residents in that accommodation, ranging from smoking to drinking alcohol, to eating meat. If the condition is 'don't do it or leave', then on your own property, that's a fair condition to make. You can extend this to an extent to personal space, but there the argument loses some of its force. If non-vegetarians and vegetarians are eating out, for instance, then there's nothing explicitly _wrong_ in the vegetarians indicating that they'd prefer for the non-vegetarians to not eat meat around them, however there is no corresponding moral obligation for the non-vegetarians to oblige. For the vegetarian to repeatedly press the point in the face of non-compliance would, however, be morally wrong, since it would be attempting to negate the non-vegetarians' right of non-compliance. In this case, the two groups should agree to differ or separate. That's not to say that vegetarians should _condone_ the non-vegetarians' actions, but that they should express further disapproval internally. At the end of the day, the inside of our own heads is the ultimate personal space. People have the right to hold any opinion or prejudice they like about others', ranging from the perfectly reasonable to the downright obnoxious, but when that opinion comes to be expressed, a balance has to be struck between 'freedom of speech' and our almost irrepressible desire to universalise our moral viewpoints, and on the other hand, other people's rights to live according to those same axioms for their own moral precepts. In a, probably vain, effort to return to the topic in hand, 'moderation' is a UniversallyImprovingIngredient. -- WJR _ModerationShouldBeYourWatchword_ _Also, if you are a member of a minority which has not yet been insulted in this thread, please leave a note below; we will endeavour to be intolerant towards you as soon as we can. Thankyou for your patience._ Please endeavour to insult mice. --DM M__I__C__E = F__A__G__G__O__T. _HTH. HAND._ Mice are rats who aren't trying hard enough! -- WJR