LogFAQs > #928898599

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, Database 5 ( 01.01.2019-12.31.2019 ), DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Can it be considered a Sloppy Joe without the bun?
Lopen 10/17/19 5:57:21 PM #129:	They can have unique names without unique ingredients they just lose their uniqueness if placed in a bowl in a way that sloppy joes do not The bowl argument only applies if you're putting something distinctive in the bowl. Like a BLT is just bacon lettuce and tomato so the only notable aspect of it is you're throwing it on a sandwich. The ingredients have no inherent blending. They're just distinct flavors that go well together. That doesn't make it not a distinctive sandwich, but it drives home that the identity is tied to the fact that it must exist on a sandwich. Sloppy joe is kinda like, I dunno, egg salad. You can put egg salad on a sandwich and it's popular. Let's imagine a hypothetical world where egg salad wasn't called egg salad but a Tenacious Gobunger, and it was typically given on a sandwich. In this hypothetical world if I wanted my Tenacious Gobunger in a bowl, it'd still more or less taste similar to it on a bun. People wouldn't say my Tenacious Gobunger in a bowl ain't Tenacious Gobunger. (well no, they probably would at 80% clip, but they shouldn't) Ultimately the only argument for Sloppy Joe requiring a bun is that's the first and most popular use of the meat sauce, but we're dealing in cans here-- can I have sloppy joe in a bowl and still identify it as such? Absolutely I can. Does it mean I should expect that a neutral party isn't going to assume I want a bun with it? Well of course not. But I can request it in a bowl without it being completely absurd. --- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love! <cite>Lopen posted [p:928898599] in Can it be ... [t:78090486]...</cite> <quote>They can have unique names without unique ingredients they just lose their uniqueness if placed in a bowl in a way that sloppy joes do not The bowl argument only applies if you're putting something distinctive in the bowl. Like a BLT is just bacon lettuce and tomato so the only notable aspect of it is you're throwing it on a sandwich. The ingredients have no inherent blending. They're just distinct flavors that go well together. That doesn't make it not a distinctive sandwich, but it drives home that the identity is tied to the fact that it must exist on a sandwich. Sloppy joe is kinda like, I dunno, egg salad. You can put egg salad on a sandwich and it's popular. Let's imagine a hypothetical world where egg salad wasn't called egg salad but a Tenacious Gobunger, and it was typically given on a sandwich. In this hypothetical world if I wanted my Tenacious Gobunger in a bowl, it'd still more or less taste similar to it on a bun. People wouldn't say my Tenacious Gobunger in a bowl ain't Tenacious Gobunger. (well no, they probably would at 80% clip, but they shouldn't) Ultimately the only argument for Sloppy Joe requiring a bun is that's the first and most popular use of the meat sauce, but we're dealing in cans here-- can I have sloppy joe in a bowl and still identify it as such? Absolutely I can. Does it mean I should expect that a neutral party isn't going to assume I want a bun with it? Well of course not. But I can request it in a bowl without it being completely absurd. --- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1