LogFAQs > #929055854

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 10/21/19 3:06:10 PM #207:	banananor posted... If I eat a pile of ham in a bowl I can call it a ham sandwich Sandwich is structure based naming convention I already went over this. Sandwich requires two slabs of edible containing material to act as the shell, which a bowl does not provide. You could call it a ham pie if the bowl was edible. The question is whether sloppy joe necessarily implies sloppy joe (sandwich) and I disagree it does because the signature filling is also called sloppy joe The real problem is the naming for sloppy joe is sloppy itself, just as you'd expect --- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love! <cite>Lopen posted [p:929055854] in Can it be ... [t:78090486]...</cite> <quote>banananor posted...</cite> <quote>If I eat a pile of ham in a bowl I can call it a ham sandwich</quote> Sandwich is structure based naming convention I already went over this. Sandwich requires two slabs of edible containing material to act as the shell, which a bowl does not provide. You could call it a ham pie if the bowl was edible. The question is whether sloppy joe necessarily implies sloppy joe (sandwich) and I disagree it does because the signature filling is also called sloppy joe The real problem is the naming for sloppy joe is sloppy itself, just as you'd expect --- No problem! This is a cute and pop genocide of love!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1