|By Lordhobgoblin on Tuesday, December 18, 2001 - 11:14 am: Edit|
Very true Blackjack. With the huge amount of Indian restaurants in the UK now Chicken Tikka Massala is now the UK's favourite dish ('fish and chips' bites the dust).
I'd rather have an Indian any day (applies equally to meals and women). Also if you're a vegetarian then you're sorted for menu choice.
England is now the home of good curries.
|By _Blackjack on Monday, December 17, 2001 - 02:16 pm: Edit|
But in the past 15-20 years good quality traditional British food has been making a comeback, plenty of game, fish and simply-cooked food.
|By Chevalier on Monday, December 17, 2001 - 12:55 pm: Edit|
Move over, Britain. Anyone remember APOCALYPSE NOW?
"The machinist, the one they called Chef, was from New Orleans. He was wrapped too tight for Vietnam; probably wrapped too tight for New Orleans …"
"Hell, I joined the Navy, heard they had better food. Cook school -- that did it.
They lined us all up in front of a hundred yards of prime rib -- magnificent meat, beautifully marbled. Then they started throwin’ it in these big cauldrons, all of it – boilin’.
I looked in, an’ … man, it was turnin’ grey. I couldn't fuckin’ believe that one."
|By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, December 17, 2001 - 12:46 pm: Edit|
I would believe that.
But let's face it, in the 50's burgers were an exotic American import in the UK. People gave up eating real food before the war (since there was very little available then) and then they had burgers foisted upon them. WWII and then fast food joints caused the death of good food in Britain. But in the past 15-20 years good quality traditional British food has been making a comeback, plenty of game, fish and simply-cooked food.
|By Admin on Monday, December 17, 2001 - 12:37 pm: Edit|
And just remember, both corned beef & pot roast are boiled meats. any complaints there?
On the other hand, my dad said that in the 50's when he was in London, Wimpy's used to sear the burgers, then throw them in a pot of boiling water to keep them warm.
Remeber there are two sides to every prime cut.
|By Chevalier on Monday, December 17, 2001 - 12:30 pm: Edit|
Cheers, Lord H. The more I read, the more I like.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, December 17, 2001 - 12:22 pm: Edit|
Tut, tut, have you never tasted Aberdeen Angus beef, jugged wild boar, venison in red wine, pork cooked in cider, Scottish Salmon, Irish Brown Trout, etc. British food gets a very unfair press.
I am very fond of food and loved the tastes of meat and fish. I am also quite a good cook. It all depends on your motivation, if you become vegetarian because you don't like the type of meat you're surrounded with, then it is easy to be switched on and off by temptation and flavour. Similarily if you're for vegetarian through 'health' reasons then you will easily switch on and off.
If however you are vegetarian for 'moral/self-development' reasons then so long as you place the importance of your 'morality/self-development' above your taste-buds then you will be unlikely to switch back regardless of the array of fine tasting meats and fishes you are surrounded with.
Anyway, I personally am not a proselytising vegetarian. I live my life according to the way I feel I should develop morally, and am not interested in persuading others to do likewise. I believe that I should not eat meat therefore I no longer do so.
|By Chevalier on Monday, December 17, 2001 - 12:01 pm: Edit|
Considering what the Brits do to meat – boiling, etc. – it’s surprising they haven’t all turned into vegetarians.
Apart from ethics, what converts us, one way or another? Fear, disgust … or temptation. They’re terribly relative, those three. After all, how difficult is it to become a vegetarian where the meat around you is tainted, not to mentioned fatty and bland? And how difficult is it to abandon one’s vegetarianism where the meat is uncontaminated, lean and delicious? When I lived in California, I practiced vegetarianism. When I arrived in South America, heard about, saw and smelled Argentine beef, I became a meat eater.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, December 17, 2001 - 11:33 am: Edit|
Sure legality and morality do coincide frequently, but the 2 things are not the same. Laws are generally passed to either control the population or gain votes. Popular opinion does not necessarily correspond with morality either, although often it does.
In short there is nothing at all immoral about breaking a law. Whereas acting immoraly (whether that be legal or illegal is immoral).
Bob / Petermarc
On another point, when I was a meat-eater I felt squeamish about skinning and cooking a rabbit over a spit (because I had a pet rabbit). I was ridiculed for hypocrisy be a horse owner who when questioned would she ever eat horse meat, said definitely not and looked at me in disgust for even suggesting this. I've ate horse meat in France before and it tasted quite nice. I'm sure that cat probably tastes ok too.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Monday, December 17, 2001 - 11:25 am: Edit|
"Eat what you like, because you like eating it. To suggest that eating animals is wrong, is fucking idiotic. If your "religion" tells you so, then you're listening to the wrong prophets."
What about eating humans, is that OK so long as you like it? What about when "religion" tells you that certain sexual practices (performed in private between consenting adults) are wrong?
I think that perhaps you believe that what behaviour your religious prophets tell you to abstain from is obviously the truth, while the word of prophets from other religions is idiotic (unless what they say coincides with what your prophets say).
|By Petermarc on Monday, December 17, 2001 - 10:29 am: Edit|
one salmonella step for man,
one giant leap for bacteria-kind...
take some responsibility, american meateaters!
cook the fuck out of your meat, it's your duty!
on the other hand, if your really like meat, france is the place, no hormones, refrigerated meat grinders, specifically for eating the meat raw, horse butchers all around, sausages that really look like the crap that they stick in it, ducks and geese brought up to think that a hose shoved down their throat with an injection of corn is how mom would have wanted it, and the stuff any normal person would throw away is treated like a prize...i did have to give up eating brains and bone marrow, after the mad-cow scare...hell, my brain seems more spongy now, anyway...and i like it...at this time in my life, i could never kill an animal for sport, or easily clean it...but i sure as hell can eat one...does this make me a hypocrite? not moral? de-evolved?
maybe, maybe not, i don't really care...as long as we can easily kill other humans for the sake of religion or money, or be more concerned about abandoned animals than the homeless and starving massing around the world, i really don't have anything to worry about...i pretty much agree with you, bob...
remember what jesus told his followers, 'eat me'
|By Uncle on Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 09:27 pm: Edit|
Its wrong to eat animal that you can't look in the eye and say I love you sweet beast. I must devour your flesh in order to sustain myself. You must die. Just know that I don't do this out of spite. I love you dear beast. My beast of fleshy burdin. a1 or heinz 57?
|By Bob_Chong on Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 09:10 pm: Edit|
"The fact that I find the idea of killing a cat much more abhorant than the idea of killing a cow is not logical; it is emotional."
For me, logic plays into it as well. I look at my cat, and nothing about him says, "Good eatin'!" He's lean, full of bones, and his meat is probably stringy. The best I could hope for is a scrawny slab of ribs, or maybe some organ meat. But he'd make one meal, maybe feed a family if there were a few side dishes involved. FWIW, do any predators or carnivores, even domesticated ones, make for good eatin'?
OTOH, a cow is an enormous animal full of delectable cuts of flesh. MMmmmmm. Rindfleisch. The cow is the vegetarian, not me--she's done all the heavy lifting by converting all that useless grass into tasty, choice and select slabs of protein and fat. We are the top of the food chain. End of story.
Next thing you know, people will be whining about the feelings of the poor grass and hay.
Fuck that shit. Eat what you like, because you like eating it. To suggest that eating animals is wrong, is fucking idiotic. If your "religion" tells you so, then you're listening to the wrong prophets.
Darwin or Deuteronomy, eating animals is the way.
|By Mr_Carfax on Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 05:17 pm: Edit|
"But Carfax, you seem to be arguing that if we drink absinthe in defiance of our countries' laws, we need to toss the notion of morality out the window. "
Absolutely not - although I would suggest that our take on morality (on this forum) is not that of our model law abiding citizen who would see breaking any law as a moral issue.
I think it is fair to say that most forumites in general recongises that morality is arbitrary, as is law. It was therefore my point that when someone takes a position of morality- others on the forum recognise this arbitrary potentiality and challenge it- it is not to descredit the value of that moral. I adopt certain morals, as does Lord H, and I guess the test of those morals are whether we stick to our guns on them when challenged.
If I thought importing and drinking absinthe was illegal in Australia, I would probably not do it - I don't need a record.
But my moral escape clause is that I know there is inconsistency in the law that is challengable by legal process on the basis on science. And without going into details, I have over the last six months put my money where my mouth is.
|By Perruche_Verte on Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 04:05 pm: Edit|
There are times when "The Law" coincides with what I'd call common sense morality - e.g. making it criminal to rape and murder one's neighbors - and times when it reflects a particular repressive notion of morality - e.g. as in parts of the U.S. and (I believe) Australia, telling me how and with whom I may use my genitals.
Note that even most primitive or tribal moral codes don't approve of rape or murder - within the tribe. Thus it's hardly necessary to legislate such things, unless you are trying to bring together from more than one nationality or tribal group and encourage them to live together peaceably.
But Carfax, you seem to be arguing that if we drink absinthe in defiance of our countries' laws, we need to toss the notion of morality out the window. I don't believe that's true.
FWIW, I have moral issues with both eating meat and NASCAR, these stemming from the larger effects of both phenomena on the world in which I live.
I don't eat meat because I live in a place near where the first three-legged frogs were discovered, where no frog species except the pollution-tolerant leopard frog has managed to survive due to chemical-intensive production of grain, most of which goes to feedlots to satisfy the American hunger for beef.
I wouldn't try to ban hunting, meat-eating or car races. I would like to see certain methods of meat production banned, and make the price of gasoline more reflective of its real cost, i.e. its contribution to health problems, environmental damage and warfare.
|By Mr_Carfax on Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 03:02 pm: Edit|
"Here you make the assumption that legality = morality and that it is immoral to break laws."
"There is nothing immoral about breaking the law. The only reason I don't break many laws is the worry that I might be caught and punished, nothing to do with morality."
Methinks you make the distinction between morality and law too strong- a significant number of laws are created on a basis of morality - and hence an emotional basis (often on the part of those with the biggest political stick). A political party with a religious agenda will quite often have their policies created on the basis of morality.
As for the argument there is nothing immoral about breaking the law- might be true, but this is purely an issue of perception. There are scores of good temperate folk who believe drinking absinthe, or any alcohol, is immoral. A law against absinthe serves to strengthen their belief in this moral position.
Being cruel to animals is not only immoral (yes I am a hypocrite meat eater), it is also illegal in most Western countries.
"If you're buying butter tofu curries then you're eating in a strange Indian restaurant. No self-respecting Indian would cook such a thing. "
Maybe the Indians in Australia are a little more progressive in exploring new ingredients and flavours to combine with traditional recipies (or maybe they just lack any self respect as you would suggest?). On a similar theme, a Thai restaurant nearby uses Kangaroo and Emu- hardly traditional, but delicious.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 10:36 am: Edit|
Heiko, if someone eats fish then he is not a vegetarian full stop. A fish is as much an animal as a cow. A 'vegetarian' who eats fish is quite simply not a vegetarian. Am I right in thinking there are very few vegetarians in Germany? I say this beacuse of your friends amazement that so many people in India are vegetarians. What is so wierd about people not eating meat? As to vegetarianism being unhealthy, well that's not true Heiko, I can get all the carbohydrates, minerals, protein, fat etc. that I need through either vegetables or dairy products (personally I'm not a vegan). Most city dwellers could kill their own food but the question is would they? If they had to kill what they ate would they eat as much of it? I suspect many would opt to become vegetarians. Is the taste of meat so vital to the lives of these people. Anyway it's horses for courses and each to his own, I choose my way of life so others should choose theirs.
"Killing other humans fosters an environemnt that would be hostile to my own survival and happiness. Individual survival, and the survival of groups within our species, is dependent on our ability to cooperate and NOT kill one another."
So to kill other human beings or not is purely a matter of practicality and not morality. But what if it is the interests of your tribe to kill other human beings from other tribes. Not simply because of their wrong-doing against your tribe but because they have something that would be advantageous to your tribe, or that their lack or existence would be to the advantage of your tribe? Not all groups of human beings depend on cooperation with other groups of human beings, sometimes it suits to wipe out another group. Might is right, do what suits the interests of your tribe. Anyway, the world is over-populated and killing a good many of our fellow humans might be in our practical interests (so long as we're not the ones being killed of course). It's all about survival, surely you can't argue with this then. Morality does not come into it.
Geoff once took a position about Israel invading Palestine, they did it because they could and because it suited their interests. At least his argument was honest.
|By Tavarua on Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 09:52 am: Edit|
"I am only speaking from Australian experience, but most people I know who grew up in a rural setting, learning how to kill, skin and gut an animal is just one those things you learn growing up."
Not just in Australia. I Central to Western PA, the first day of Deer season is considered a holiday, excusing children from their classes.
|By _Blackjack on Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 08:34 am: Edit|
If there is basically no difference between animals and plants and there is no moral difference between killing either then what is morally wrong with killing other humans? We are then no different from plants in that regard.
|By Heiko on Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 04:10 am: Edit|
The fact that I don't know how to kill animals because I'm a child of the city doesn't mean I couldn't learn that rather quickly if I had to. If it was "kill or become a vegetarian", most city dwellers could kill animals soon, I believe.
A friend of mine who is a vegetarian (he doesn't even eat fish...) and has been to India twice (walking through the country in pure backpacker's style) told me he was amazed that most Indians are kind of vegetarians. Of course, most people just don't have the money to eat meat, but it also seems to be not really fashionable for Hindus. It's not forbidden to eat meat, but people won't do it often, even if they can afford it.
I had a similar experience in Bali - people eat meat, but just not that much. When you order Bami Goreng with chicken, they'll even give you extra meat because they know tourists like it, but it will still be only some little pieces in a meal full of vegetables and noodles.
Whatever it is that makes Europeans (especially Germans) and Americans think a good meal must consist of a pound of meat plus some few other stuff - it's unhealthy and wrong (as well as being vegetarian or vegan is unhealthy and wrong).
|By Lordhobgoblin on Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 01:10 am: Edit|
True, country-folk are less sentimental and are closer to the reality of what is involved in producing a tasty bacon sandwich. But in the West most consumers are not country-folk, but are urban-dwellers so my statement does hold true. How many meat-eating country-folk do you find protesting about hunting? Very few indeed, but you'll find lots of meat-eating urban-dwellers protesting.
"Good heavens, if we are going to talk morality issues here, then I find it ironic that most of us are happy to bend/break the laws of our own countries in order to make and imbibe Absinthe, because we find our own morality escape clause to justify this."
Here you make the assumption that legality = morality and that it is immoral to break laws. I live in the UK, many other forumites live in the USA. Is it immoral for them to consume absinthe but moral for me to do so? Slavery was once legal, did that make it moral?
There is nothing immoral about breaking the law. The only reason I don't break many laws is the worry that I might be caught and punished, nothing to do with morality. Also many things that are legally allowed I will refrain from doing so because I believe such actions (legal though they may be) to be immoral. Legality does not equal morality, illegality does not equal immorality. Morality is not defined by politicians.
"If eating for pleasure is killing for pleasure...then to quote the Bard, I will smile, and murder while I smile."
So you're an honest meat-eater. This makes a welcome change. If people want to eat meat then fine, but they should at least be honest about what is happening and why they are eating-meat (not this "I eat meat out of necessity" excuse.)
If you're buying butter tofu curries then you're eating in a strange Indian restaurant. No self-respecting Indian would cook such a thing. On the other hand a nice alloo-gobi, sag-paneer, okra curry, or even vegetable balti really tickles the tastebuds. I've never eaten tofu in my life, it is a common misconception that, having stopped eating meat, vegetarians have to find something to physically take the place of that meat (such as tofu) on their plate. Vegetables taste great, why should we want to eat something bland and tasteless like Tofu?
|By Mr_Carfax on Saturday, December 15, 2001 - 04:59 pm: Edit|
"The fact is that in the West most meat-eaters simply don't like the idea of killing other animals."
I am going to be a little simplistic and say that people can also be divided into 2 categories. Those who live in the city, and those who live in the country.
For the former, your above statement is probably true. For the latter, it could be regarded as unsustainable.
I am only speaking from Australian experience, but most people I know who grew up in a rural setting, learning how to kill, skin and gut an animal is just one those things you learn growing up. A trip to the local abbattoir as a school excursion is almost standard.
I'm not denying there is some validity to your argument, only I think it has more to do with the environment one has grown up in than a juggling of moral conumdrums.
Good heavens, if we are going to talk morality issues here, then I find it ironic that most of us are happy to bend/break the laws of our own countries in order to make and imbibe Absinthe, because we find our own morality escape clause to justify this. I assume we do this for reasons of pleasure.
A good butter chicken curry tastes better than a butter tofu curry.
If eating for pleasure is killing for pleasure...then to quote the Bard, I will smile, and murder while I smile.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Saturday, December 15, 2001 - 05:44 am: Edit|
If there is basically no difference between animals and plants and there is no moral difference between killing either then what is morally wrong with killing other humans? We are then no different from plants in that regard.
The "So long as I eat it I can kill anything I like" argument doesn't stand up. There is no difference between killing to satisfy our tastebuds and killing to safisfy our urge to kill? Most of us in the West eat far too much food anyway and way far too much meat. Whole industries are built up around people aiming to lose weight and our excessive meat eating kills many of us from heart disease.
We do not need to eat meat to live, I don't feel any worse than when I used to eat meat. It's not inconvenient and its not pain in the ass being a vegetarian. After a while you don't even miss the taste of most meats. The most inconvenient thing about it is the very small menu selection you have to choose from when eating out (particularly in English pubs), but then you can always go for an Indian, Italian, Thai, Chinese meal where you have lots of choice.
If you want to eat meat then fine, that's up to you. But don't fool yourself into believing that you are eating meat because you need to do so. Don't delude yourself into thinking that killing animals to tickle your tastebuds is somehow more noble than killing for sport. What you do with the dead body afterwards is immaterial,it is the motivation for killing that determines the morality of the action. If you're eating for pleasure rather than out of necessity then you're killing for pleasure and not out of necessity.
The fact is that in the West most meat-eaters simply don't like the idea of killing other animals. This act more platable for them by them being removing far away for the actual killing act itself and by perpetuating the myth that this killing is necessary for them to live. The very same people attack hunters for going out and shooting animals. Why? Because they don't like the thought of cute, furry, animals being shot dead. If I was an animal I'd much rather be shot for sport by a hunter than be raised by modern intensive farming methods and then sent off to the slaughter-house before I had barely finished my childhood.
|By Artist on Friday, December 14, 2001 - 12:02 pm: Edit|
Yes, and the cows get rid of the methane before we eat it...
|By _Blackjack on Friday, December 14, 2001 - 11:43 am: Edit|
I mean, cows are just made of grass, anyway, so technically, they're just vegetables...
|By Mr_Rabid on Friday, December 14, 2001 - 02:26 am: Edit|
Perfect sense! May I eat your nipples?
All deaths are vain. So are the lives that preceed them.
"Good? Bad? I'm the guy with the gun."
Ash, one of those Evil Dead movies or other.
|By Meat_Nipples on Friday, December 14, 2001 - 12:25 am: Edit|
I believe in a nutshell, that there is nothing wrong with killing another animal as long as you eat it. If you like to hunt for the sheer pleasure of watching an animal die, that is fine, just make sure you eat it. It is when people trophy hunt that bothers me. If you kill something don't let its death be in vain. Eating meat is ordained by nature, it is a pure animal act. When we eat plants, we are still taking a life. I don't see where animals or humans have any more life potential than a plant. As long as the animal wasn't tortured, such as veal, something I’ve never eaten and never will. That is as close to a moral objection about eating meat as you’ll get from me. Meat is our dismal connection with our truer nature. We are made of this flimsy decaying flesh that another creature would consume in a heartbeat. We are all the same as living beings in this regard. Something would eat us all given the chance. Being consumed after death is more noble than being buried, though the worms and parasites will eventually get to you anyway. I am drunk right now, so please excuse if this makes no sense.
|By Artist on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 03:05 pm: Edit|
I believe that the human animal is truely an omnivorous animal and as such, to be truely healthy, we need a combination of plant and animal sustenance. I think it is fine for herbivores to eat only plants and carnivores to eat only animals...
What this means is that on some level, I believe we are eating meat and vegetative matter to survive.
I do try to get "free range" meat as much as possible (and here in the USA it is almost always available). I haven't eaten veal in quite some time. I see no reason to be cruel to an animal to make it "taste better"...
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 02:40 pm: Edit|
Oh, I certainly kill for pleasure. I enjoy the hell out of eating meat. And, honestly, I kill for convenience. While it's possible to live meat-free, it's a pain in the ass.
As far as hunting goes, I find the CULTURE which surrounds it to be aesthetically unpleasing, but the same could be said for NASCAR, and I'm not going to try and say THAT is immoral. Hunting, especially of deer, is a necessity at this point. Cute as tey are, they're just big-eyed vermin, and if their numbers aren't controlled, their deaths will be far more unpleasant.
|By Chevalier on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 01:07 pm: Edit|
Hobgoblin hit the bullseye. (Don't worry, Mr. Bull, he's not going to eat you.) Meat has become a not-so-cheap thrill. For people in Chile, it's a status symbol: meat means money. It is the poor that subsist on fruits, vegetables and grains. In Brazil, black beans and rice were once slaves' fodder; but times have changed, and now they're part of every Brazilian's diet. Meanwhile, meat marches on: a forest-gobbling, methane-belching luxury.
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 12:44 pm: Edit|
""I don't consider eating human flesh wrong. I consider killing humans for this purpose to be wrong..."
"Its nice to know other people think the same way I do""
I agree with this entirely (If someone is already dead then what's morally wrong with eating that person?).
But I'd take it one step further.
I don't consider eating meat to be wrong but I do consider killing animals for this purpose to be wrong (unless of course you will starve to death if you don't kill).
|By Lordhobgoblin on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 12:37 pm: Edit|
With regard to Westerners (and many others) the belief that there is a moral difference between killing for sport and killing for eating is nonsense. In both cases you ARE killing for pleasure. Where there is a suitable supply of plants to eat (and there is here) we are not eating meat to survive, we are eating meat because we get pleasure from the taste of meat.
I believe that hunters get a raw deal from their fellow meat-eaters. Both kill for pleasure (or in the case of most meat-eaters pay someone else do the killing for them).
Unless you are live in the artic circle, or are unfortunate enough to be live in one of the starvation ridden countries of the world, you do NOT have to kill and eat meat to survive. You eat meat because you get pleasure from the taste, just as hunters get pleasure from hunting. Meat-eaters are in no position to condemn hunters. At least most hunters are intellectualy honest about their reasons for sport killing.
As a vegetarian I condemn neither meat-eaters nor hunters, I am in no position to do so. I don't eat meat because I personally think it is not right for me to take life (or pay someone else to do it for me) for the purposes of my own personal pleasure.
|By Chevalier on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 07:15 am: Edit|
"To kill for sport or pleasure is something I question."
Questionable or not, the pleasure derived from killing wild animals helped keep many of our ancestors' bellies full. (Vegetarians notwithstanding.) Pleasure is a fringe benefit of hunting; in turn, it's an incentive to hunt better and more. A vicious cycle? Applies to sex, too.
I don't think one can completely wipe the pleasure out of killing. We're not out of the jungle yet.
|By _Blackjack on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 03:55 am: Edit|
I don not consider killing other animals for the purpose of eating them to be wrong. Simply put, as an animal, I must kill to survive. Drawing a distinction between animals and plants is simply arbitrary.
The reason I draw a distinction (also somewhat arbitrary) between killing humans and other animals is largely a practical one: fostering an environment where human life is held precious increases the likelyhood that I will have a long and productive life.
|By Artist on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 02:40 am: Edit|
Hunter and prey. It's okay for an omnivorous animal (human) to kill other animals to eat. To kill for sport or pleasure is something I question.
|By Timk on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 02:28 am: Edit|
Now, if you consider killing humans for the purpose of eating them is wrong, do you also consider killing animals for the purpose of eating them is wrong?
|By Timk on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 02:24 am: Edit|
"I don't consider eating human flesh wrong. I consider killing humans for this purpose to be wrong, and, moreover, eating your own species, or closely related ones, is unhygenic."
Its nice to know other people think the same way I do
|By Petermarc on Thursday, December 13, 2001 - 01:37 am: Edit|
vera, as much as i would like to take credit for that quote, it is from the monty python sketch that chevalier refered to...i agree with you on it's dark brilliance...
|By Admin on Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 08:09 pm: Edit|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation