Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   British residents need an entire newspaper column to answer the question, "How do you eat nachos?"   (theguardian.com ) divider line
    More: Amusing, British Residents, editorials, pulled pork  
•       •       •

3828 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 May 2014 at 12:26 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-05-13 03:53:58 PM  

OooShiny: First step is to admit that Brits don't know shiat about a nacho cuz this article's example is just nasty:

[img.fark.net image 460x276]


That's not nachos. That's vomit.
 
2014-05-13 04:03:01 PM  

abhorrent1: Bungles: abhorrent1: They have Nachos there? I bet they're awful.

Outside of Mexican restaurants and cinemas? Not really. They're not a "thing" here, because we have only three or four Mexicans.

WTF? You don't have to have a population of Mexicans to enjoy Nachos. Who doesn't enjoy nachos?


Brits don't apparently unless they are boiled till they're soggy.

/the nachos not the Brits
 
2014-05-13 04:06:14 PM  

Wangiss: Bungles: DocPeabody: Silly_Sot: Paul Baumer: really, an article on how to pronounce the word "nachos" would be of more value to the brits.

You do realize you're referring to the country where people pronounce the name "Manuel" as if it were spelled "Man-yoo-el", and that is AFTER THEY HAVE HEARD IT SAID PROPERLY.

Aluminium! WHY CANT THEY SAY IT RIGHT!?

This is also the same country that competes in" ignoring the trends of the world" by driving on the wrong side of the road. I mean that's giving the US a run for its money.


And have fewer traffic accidents as a result, because most people are right-eye dominant...

No, it's because they're more courteous as a matter of cultural identity, farktard.


I didn't make this up. There have actually been studies into this.
 
2014-05-13 04:09:20 PM  

Wangiss: Bungles: Britain has a very small Mexican population, hence bad/little Mexican food.

Our knowledge and quality of curries however, due to our large Indian/Bangladeshi/Pakistani population, is second to none outside south Asia.

Wouldn't it be more succinct to write "second only to South Asia"?


I think the way I put it makes it clearer that it's an obvious given that south Asia has better curry culture, rather than me suggesting a reader wouldn't realise that and it was a clever thing I was saying.
 
2014-05-13 04:11:45 PM  

abhorrent1: Bungles: abhorrent1: They have Nachos there? I bet they're awful.

Outside of Mexican restaurants and cinemas? Not really. They're not a "thing" here, because we have only three or four Mexicans.

WTF? You don't have to have a population of Mexicans to enjoy Nachos. Who doesn't enjoy nachos?


Foods don't become part of a culture by magic, they do so through immigrants eating them and it catching on outside that group.
 
2014-05-13 04:17:35 PM  
I had a wife to show me these strange things.

What I found weird is you go to Taco Bell in the US and you eat a burrito without a knife and fork. Totally weird.
 
2014-05-13 04:23:04 PM  
The Guardian is an idiotic leftwing newspaper that thinks analysing how to eat food will save the planet.
 
2014-05-13 04:26:25 PM  

limeyfellow: I had a wife to show me these strange things.

What I found weird is you go to Taco Bell in the US and you eat a burrito without a knife and fork. Totally weird.


Burritos were peasant and/or street food. When you don't have any dishes and potable water to keep them clean, you make a one-handed meal. Like the Cornish pasty but with less profanity.
 
2014-05-13 04:32:12 PM  

Bungles: Wangiss: Bungles: DocPeabody: Silly_Sot: Paul Baumer: really, an article on how to pronounce the word "nachos" would be of more value to the brits.

You do realize you're referring to the country where people pronounce the name "Manuel" as if it were spelled "Man-yoo-el", and that is AFTER THEY HAVE HEARD IT SAID PROPERLY.

Aluminium! WHY CANT THEY SAY IT RIGHT!?

This is also the same country that competes in" ignoring the trends of the world" by driving on the wrong side of the road. I mean that's giving the US a run for its money.


And have fewer traffic accidents as a result, because most people are right-eye dominant...

No, it's because they're more courteous as a matter of cultural identity, farktard.

I didn't make this up. There have actually been studies into this.


I was being brash for silliness' sake, so thank you for not overreacting. But the results from the remainder of the world don't really hold up with your theory.
 
2014-05-13 05:01:36 PM  

SmackLT: but remember, the right way to deal with long strands of cheese is to pull it, then fold it atop the chip.


Dude. Did your parents not teach you manners? That's what the cheese scissors are for.

use the forks to remove any jalapeno seeds that the chef might have missed, although that's quite rare.

Remove... remove jalapeno seeds? That the chef might have MISSED? ...you're from Maine, aren't you. Admit it. You're practically a Canadian.
 
2014-05-13 05:27:03 PM  

Publikwerks: Tonyboy: This article brings up a fundamental point:  Why do the Brits spell chili with two l's?


It's a perfectly cromulent spelling.

Why don't USans spell it as "chile"? Since they're often referring to chile con carne?

According to this, "chilli" was the original Romanisation of the Nahuatl term.

Because Brits sprinkle all their words with extra vowels?

shiat, better update my dictionary. It's got "l" down as a consonant.
 
2014-05-13 05:53:23 PM  

Bungles: abhorrent1: Bungles: abhorrent1: They have Nachos there? I bet they're awful.

Outside of Mexican restaurants and cinemas? Not really. They're not a "thing" here, because we have only three or four Mexicans.

WTF? You don't have to have a population of Mexicans to enjoy Nachos. Who doesn't enjoy nachos?

Foods don't become part of a culture by magic, they do so through immigrants eating them and it catching on outside that group.


Culture be damned. It's freak'n Nachos. Kind of like my old boss from Ohio that had never heard of an Italian Beef before. I was all "LOL WUT?
 
2014-05-13 06:32:35 PM  
Oooh, do you think we can get a good culinary religious war going on Fark?

/I grew up in Iowa; BBQ was synonymous with grilling.  Still is, except when it isn't.
 
2014-05-13 07:03:53 PM  

abhorrent1: Bungles: abhorrent1: Bungles: abhorrent1: They have Nachos there? I bet they're awful.

Outside of Mexican restaurants and cinemas? Not really. They're not a "thing" here, because we have only three or four Mexicans.

WTF? You don't have to have a population of Mexicans to enjoy Nachos. Who doesn't enjoy nachos?

Foods don't become part of a culture by magic, they do so through immigrants eating them and it catching on outside that group.

Culture be damned. It's freak'n Nachos. Kind of like my old boss from Ohio that had never heard of an Italian Beef before. I was all "LOL WUT?


Nachos are only a thing you know about because they're from your next door neighbour... they're not a thing everywhere.... just like the millions of things you've never heard of that a common everyday snacks elsewhere.
 
2014-05-13 07:05:32 PM  

emberposse: The Guardian is an idiotic leftwing newspaper that thinks analysing how to eat food will save the planet.


It's a lighthearted article in a weekend magazine supplement, you gaping tit-stick.
 
2014-05-13 07:21:22 PM  
Why to eat corn chips covered in a fat and a slurry of dressings devised by and for impoverished Mexicans would be a much better question.
 
2014-05-13 07:22:40 PM  
...or, "Sauced Clippings" as nachos are called in Britain...
 
2014-05-13 08:34:52 PM  

timujin: As someone who grew up in Texas and now lives in California, I'll take advice on how to make nachos from an Englishman sometime shortly after the heat death of the universe.


The English are wonderful at many things, but when it comes to anything Hispanic, they fail spectacularly.  No lettuce?  Seriously?  If you chose to do without lettuce, so be it ---- let that folly be upon your own head, but if you try to tell other people that they SHOULDN'T put lettuce on nachos, you deserve to be locked in a cell and fed nothing but spotted dick and beans on toast for the rest of your life.
 
2014-05-13 08:47:52 PM  

Paul Baumer: really, an article on how to pronounce the word "nachos" would be of more value to the brits.


It wouldn't help.  But there is an upside: when listening to the BBC (or any other news station where the announce has some variety of British accent), hearing how they pronounce names of people and places in Latin America is pure comedy gold.

As an experiment, I used to get Chileans to listen to the Sting song "Valparaíso" and ask them to guess what city the song was about.  Nobody figured out it was supposed to be about a city in Chile (even though their English was good enough that they could make out many of the other words).  Maybe it was just me, but the fact that he sings the word "Valparaíso" over and over but nobody actually from there can make out what the hell he's trying to say struck me as amusing.
 
2014-05-13 08:51:31 PM  

Publikwerks: mainsail: And thus the BBQ Religion, with its sects of vinegar based sauce and tomato based sauce didst rise up, and explain that grilling be cooking over a fire, on a grate, rapidly, whereas BBQ be cooking slow, over smoke and flame, for many hours....and thus did the war begin over who doth it correctly, and woe came upon the thread...but the pedants danced.

1. Thou shall not confuse Grilling and BBQ
2. Thou shall drink beer while Grilling or BBQing
3. Thou shall never grill a steak past medium rare
4. Thou shall cook 60% on one side, 40% on the other
5.Thou shalt tread kindly on the methods of thy fellow seekers. There is no one right way to 'cue.
6.Thou shalt NOT use Lighter Fluid for thy time at the Q is Holy as  such use shall sour thy taste in the eyes of the Creator and thy quests!
7.Thou shall not parboil
8. Thou shall enjoy thine Q, or thou is doing it wrong
9.  Did thine mention beer?
10. Thou shall pass said lessons to children


5 is a bit out of place here, and really takes away from the fundamentalism required to live by some 10 comandments of bbq

/American and never realized my people cared so much about differentiating between grilling and bbq
//cooks meat on the grill on the side without the flame but calls it grilling because I'm not sitting there all day
///plenty of people here call grilling bbqing "Hey want to come over we're having a bbq" never heard someone ask if I want to come over for a grilling even though they're grilling
 
2014-05-13 08:57:55 PM  

FarkinNortherner: Why to eat corn chips covered in a fat and a slurry of dressings devised by and for impoverished Mexicans would be a much better question.


Nachos, as invented by a Mexican (for the benefit of American army wives), consisted of melted cheese and a pickled jalapeño on a tortilla chip.  All of the other stuff that comes on them now were added by Americans in subsequent years.

Then again, the obvious answer here on Fark, barring actual knowledge, is some possibly racist and definitely ignorant tripe.
 
2014-05-13 09:05:49 PM  

pute kisses like a man: FTA:

Advocates for Mexican food must despair that a dish created on-the-fly by a harassed maître 'd is one that defines Mexican cuisine for a global audience


Nachos define mexican cuisine to the globe?  man, the globe is a farking sad and ignorant place.  yeah, that makes me sad.  that's like saying the definitive american food is the campbell's soup based casserole.


Sadly it is rather like that.  Outside the USA what people think of as "American food" is mostly fast-food hamburgers, hot dogs, and pizza.
 
2014-05-13 09:10:57 PM  

abhorrent1: They have Nachos there? I bet they're awful.


They probably are, but I would bet not so bad as ones I've had in Korea.  I once ate, or attempted to eat, a plate of Nachos in Seoul that would make you cry.

Though my all-time favorite example of Koreans not grokking Western food was the time I bought "cornbread" in Pusan.  It was a loaf of sliced bread, with little kernels of corn spangled throughout.  I actually cried that day.

/Yes, I suppose we screw up their food just as badly.
 
2014-05-13 09:19:29 PM  

FourDirections: OooShiny: First step is to admit that Brits don't know shiat about a nacho cuz this article's example is just nasty:

[img.fark.net image 460x276]

That's not nachos. That's vomit.


And you can't dust for nachos?
 
2014-05-13 09:29:35 PM  

happyleper: FarkinNortherner: Why to eat corn chips covered in a fat and a slurry of dressings devised by and for impoverished Mexicans would be a much better question.

Nachos, as invented by a Mexican (for the benefit of American army wives), consisted of melted cheese and a pickled jalapeño on a tortilla chip.  All of the other stuff that comes on them now were added by Americans in subsequent years.

Then again, the obvious answer here on Fark, barring actual knowledge, is some possibly racist and definitely ignorant tripe.


Thanks, I'm well aware of the purported origins of nachos. As I'm sure you know, the later additions are largely drawn from rural Mexican food.

Given that the food originates amongst the relatively poor and that Mexicans aren't a race, I'm unmoved by your assertions.

Nachos, meanwhile, remain vile.
 
2014-05-13 09:31:40 PM  

ciberido: abhorrent1: They have Nachos there? I bet they're awful.

They probably are, but I would bet not so bad as ones I've had in Korea.  I once ate, or attempted to eat, a plate of Nachos in Seoul that would make you cry.

Though my all-time favorite example of Koreans not grokking Western food was the time I bought "cornbread" in Pusan.  It was a loaf of sliced bread, with little kernels of corn spangled throughout.  I actually cried that day.

/Yes, I suppose we screw up their food just as badly.


I had cheesecake in Tokyo that was cake with "yellow cheese" baked in. :(
 
2014-05-13 09:36:34 PM  

Publikwerks: Tonyboy: This article brings up a fundamental point:  Why do the Brits spell chili with two l's?

Because Brits sprinkle all their words with extra vowels?


And because they buy complete alphabet packs, they then end up with a lot of leftover consonants.
 
2014-05-13 09:40:28 PM  

kroonermanblack: Bungles: Dear Jerk: Brits turn their nose up at BBQ, too. Like conservative talking heads, their opinions should be taken only for entertainment, not instruction.

British people adore BBQ, it just that they prefer proper, outside BBQs, and the chances to reliably organise them is infrequent (due to weather).

On the first day of proper summer, the entire UK stinks of BBQ, because every single person with a BBQ is using it.

Sigh. Are you trolling or serious? The term you are looking for is 'grill', not 'barbecue'.

BBQ as a cooking process at no point involves shuffling hamburgers and hot dogs over a fire for 15 seconds. It doesn't involve direct flame at all in most cases. It is specifically about low, indirect, heat applied over long periods of time. Used to soften otherwise difficult to use cuts, like brisket, and skirt of flank steak.


Sheesh, even the Wikipedia article on barbecue says as much in the first two paragraphs.
 
2014-05-13 09:45:58 PM  

Wasilla Hillbilly: kroonermanblack: Wasilla Hillbilly: Um....it seems pretty straight forward. As long as you don't go at it like it's a pie-eating contest, you're probably good to go.

Many cultures eat 'American' dishes differently. Like using a knife and fork for burgers, or pizza.

Americans often eat other cultural dishes oddly as well so it's a wash.

In a culture with no texmex being presented with a steaming bowl of cheese-chip soup is confusing to consume. You don't use a spoon, wtf do you do?!

/from texas
//the above was rhetorical

Oh, come on. Do they not watch American TV/movies?


There was an old Fark article about how the explosion in popularity of Mexican food in Sweden didn't come from Mexican immigrants, but from Swedes watching people eating tacos in American films and TV shows, and thinking, "Hey, that looks good."

Here it is.
 
2014-05-13 09:53:54 PM  

iron de havilland: Publikwerks: Tonyboy: This article brings up a fundamental point:  Why do the Brits spell chili with two l's?

It's a perfectly cromulent spelling.

Why don't USans spell it as "chile"? Since they're often referring to chile con carne?



Do you mean "chili con carne"?

"Chile" is a nation in South America.  It is not a food.  They do not eat chili in Chile, nor do they even know what the hell chili is.

I don't really care how many "Ls" you use, but only the ignorant spell "chili" (of chili con carne) with an "E."
 
2014-05-13 10:05:39 PM  

abhorrent1: Culture be damned. It's freak'n Nachos. Kind of like my old boss from Ohio that had never heard of an Italian Beef before. I was all "LOL WUT?


upload.wikimedia.org


Mmmm. Italian beef.

That's bresaola.

ciberido: The English are wonderful at many things, but when it comes to anything Hispanic, they fail spectacularly.


Tapas is pretty popular here. And, shiat, there are a couple of Brazilian food places near me. In a city of 250000.

Also many American food joints: McDonalds, Papa John's, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Dominos and KFC.

/Must visit the Nepalese restaurant that's just up the road from me.
 
2014-05-13 10:08:03 PM  

ciberido: iron de havilland: Publikwerks: Tonyboy: This article brings up a fundamental point:  Why do the Brits spell chili with two l's?

It's a perfectly cromulent spelling.

Why don't USans spell it as "chile"? Since they're often referring to chile con carne?


Do you mean "chili con carne"?

"Chile" is a nation in South America.  It is not a food.  They do not eat chili in Chile, nor do they even know what the hell chili is.

I don't really care how many "Ls" you use, but only the ignorant spell "chili" (of chili con carne) with an "E."


No, "chile" is the Spanish for chilli or chili.

It just seems weird that you wouldn't use the Spanish spelling for a dish "con carne".
 
2014-05-13 10:08:41 PM  

Bungles: abhorrent1: Bungles: WTF? You don't have to have a population of Mexicans to enjoy Nachos. Who doesn't enjoy nachos?

Foods don't become part of a culture by magic, they do so through immigrants eating them and it catching on outside that group.

Culture be damned. It's freak'n Nachos. Kind of like my old boss from Ohio that had never heard of an Italian Beef before. I was all "LOL WUT?

Nachos are only a thing you know about because they're from your next door neighbour... they're not a thing everywhere.... just like the millions of things you've never heard of that a common everyday snacks elsewhere.


First, I've never heard of "an Italian Beef" before, so feel free to LOL WUT me as well.  I still have no idea what it is, except a vague intuition that beef may be somehow involved.

Second, there are all kinds of wonderful dishes out there that most people have never heard of.  Just speaking of street food and snacks, I love samosas and ho-tteok, for example, but I bet 90% of people living in North America have ever heard of either. Or lasis or Bombay/Punjabi mix or .... the list goes on.
 
2014-05-13 10:31:26 PM  

iron de havilland: No, "chile" is the Spanish for chilli or chili.

It just seems weird that you wouldn't use the Spanish spelling for a dish "con carne".


Thank you ever so much, but I actually was already aware of what "chile" means in Spanish.  They both come from the Náhuatl (Aztecan) word "chilli," by the way, so it's not like chile -> chili/chilli was a one-way street.  Náhuatl, by the way, didn't have an alphabet until the Spanish arrived and imposed theirs, which renders any sort of etymological argument moot.

The Spanish spelling of "chili con carne" is --- brace yourself ---- "chili con carne," and has been since at least 1893, so I'm afraid it's too late to go back and ask anybody involved why they chose to spell "chili" without an "E."  If it means anything to you, I agree that "chile con carne" seems like it WOULD BE a sensible way to spell it, given the term's likely etymology.  Though, on the other hand, "chili" is much closer to how the word is generally pronounced in North America.

That is also why, incidentally, I might argue that "chili" is a better spelling than "chilli" (in Spanish "l" and "ll" are totally different) but I am already familiar with the Commonwealth tendency to insert extraneous letters into words, so I imagine it would be like beating a dead horse.

Lastly, I don't mean to be a complete jackass about this, but given that I lived in Chile and have been asked, "So do they eat chili in Chile?" by wags just about 12,000 times now, it's become a bit of a sore spot for me.
 
2014-05-13 10:59:22 PM  
My theory is they chopped down all the trees to sacrifice their virgins to heathen idol and figured out too late that the weather wouldn't change. Then they learned how to write a language on clay tablets, and that all started a rumor between the various tribes that one or the other was a sloppy eater.

They spent the last 12 centuries figuring out how to forge silver into eating utensils and totally ignored wiping their mouths with paper because papyrus was only good for writing on, and writing was for the gods.

Then, they outlawed toothbrushes because that required horse hair, which was needed to make quills to write on papyrus with. You can't write the King James Bible with your greasy, nacho-stained finger, peasant!
 
2014-05-13 11:19:31 PM  

Tonyboy: This article brings up a fundamental point:  Why do the Brits spell chili with two l's?


Should be chile?
 
2014-05-13 11:53:14 PM  

FarkinNortherner: happyleper: FarkinNortherner: Why to eat corn chips covered in a fat and a slurry of dressings devised by and for impoverished Mexicans would be a much better question.

Nachos, as invented by a Mexican (for the benefit of American army wives), consisted of melted cheese and a pickled jalapeño on a tortilla chip.  All of the other stuff that comes on them now were added by Americans in subsequent years.

Then again, the obvious answer here on Fark, barring actual knowledge, is some possibly racist and definitely ignorant tripe.

Thanks, I'm well aware of the purported origins of nachos. As I'm sure you know, the later additions are largely drawn from rural Mexican food.

Given that the food originates amongst the relatively poor and that Mexicans aren't a race, I'm unmoved by your assertions.


The wealth (or perceived lack thereof) of Mexicans is completely irrelevant to the fact that you don't like nachos.  If you want to insist that there is not a racial overtone to that, you keep on farking that chicken.
 
2014-05-14 12:09:56 AM  

happyleper: FarkinNortherner: happyleper: FarkinNortherner: Why to eat corn chips covered in a fat and a slurry of dressings devised by and for impoverished Mexicans would be a much better question.

Nachos, as invented by a Mexican (for the benefit of American army wives), consisted of melted cheese and a pickled jalapeño on a tortilla chip.  All of the other stuff that comes on them now were added by Americans in subsequent years.

Then again, the obvious answer here on Fark, barring actual knowledge, is some possibly racist and definitely ignorant tripe.

Thanks, I'm well aware of the purported origins of nachos. As I'm sure you know, the later additions are largely drawn from rural Mexican food.

Given that the food originates amongst the relatively poor and that Mexicans aren't a race, I'm unmoved by your assertions.

The wealth (or perceived lack thereof) of Mexicans is completely irrelevant to the fact that you don't like nachos.  If you want to insist that there is not a racial overtone to that, you keep on farking that chicken.


Mexican still isn't a race, however much you'd like to assert otherwise.

Enjoying the food of the poorest members of a society is not unique to this example but in most cases more expensive ingredients are added by the adopting culture. See pierogis for further details.
 
2014-05-14 04:09:12 AM  

ciberido: Náhuatl, by the way, didn't have an alphabet until the Spanish arrived and imposed theirs, which renders any sort of etymological argument moot.


Other than the fact that the first Romanisation of chilli/chili/chile was "chilli".

ciberido: That is also why, incidentally, I might argue that "chili" is a better spelling than "chilli" (in Spanish "l" and "ll" are totally different) but I am already familiar with the Commonwealth tendency to insert extraneous letters into words, so I imagine it would be like beating a dead horse.


More of an American tendency to remove letters from words, n'est-ce pas?

Noah Webster apparently wanted to spell "tongue" as "tung", but couldn't make it stick.

Lastly, I don't mean to be a complete jackass about this, but given that I lived in Chile and have been asked, "So do they eat chili in Chile?" by wags just about 12,000 times now, it's become a bit of a sore spot for me.

Sounds like you could do with a nice cup of tea and a biscuit.
 
2014-05-14 06:43:44 AM  
It's a lighthearted article in a weekend magazine supplement, you gaping tit-stick.

The Guardian is trying to do funny? Forgive me for missing it as 99% of the time they do the pompous self-righteous routine.
 
2014-05-14 08:10:43 AM  

emberposse: It's a lighthearted article in a weekend magazine supplement, you gaping tit-stick.

The Guardian is trying to do funny? Forgive me for missing it as 99% of the time they do the pompous self-righteous routine.


It's a cooking article in a lifestyle weekend supplement.

You're trying to politicise the cooking section. You look absurd.
 
2014-05-14 09:48:14 AM  

Egoy3k: TheShavingofOccam123: The important thing to remember about American BBQ, particularly Texas BBQ, is if you are eating off of anything other than butcher paper, you're not eating true BBQ.

I thought the cardinal rule of Texas BBQ is that ribs are beef.


blasphemy.jpg
 
2014-05-14 10:11:21 AM  
It's a cooking article in a lifestyle weekend supplement.
You're trying to politicise the cooking section. You look absurd.


This whole thread is predicated on the idea that British people are being told how to eat nachos. I'd say the article was absurd tbh.
I suppose I couldn't expect much less from a newspaper that champions top-down government interference in our daily lives. So telling us how to eat nachos fits that bill.
 
2014-05-14 10:38:20 AM  

emberposse: It's a cooking article in a lifestyle weekend supplement.
You're trying to politicise the cooking section. You look absurd.

This whole thread is predicated on the idea that British people are being told how to eat nachos. I'd say the article was absurd tbh.
I suppose I couldn't expect much less from a newspaper that champions top-down government interference in our daily lives. So telling us how to eat nachos fits that bill.


I get the feeling you've never read the Guardian. And probably don't get invited to BBQs.

You might have eaten nachos though, I can't tell that one.
 
2014-05-14 10:50:10 AM  
I get the feeling you've never read the Guardian. And probably don't get invited to BBQs.You might have eaten nachos though, I can't tell that one.


Sadly I've read the Guardian all too often.

As for nachos: I eat them the way I want. Why would anyone want to read an article telling you how to eat something?
 
2014-05-14 10:54:35 AM  

emberposse: I get the feeling you've never read the Guardian. And probably don't get invited to BBQs.You might have eaten nachos though, I can't tell that one.


Sadly I've read the Guardian all too often.

As for nachos: I eat them the way I want. Why would anyone want to read an article telling you how to eat something?


Because nachos are not a common thing in the UK. Yes, they exist, but most people would have only seen them on the menu in a US cinema chain, or think they're essentially a bag of Doritos eaten like crisps..

It's not more odd than an article in the US on how to peel a durian.
 
2014-05-14 10:55:27 AM  

iron de havilland: ciberido: Náhuatl, by the way, didn't have an alphabet until the Spanish arrived and imposed theirs, which renders any sort of etymological argument moot.


Other than the fact that the first Romanisation of chilli/chili/chile was "chilli".


And that's fine for etymology lessons, but arguing against the only way the inventor of chili con carne could have spelled the name of the culinary dish is preposterous at this point. Chilli would be pronounced "chee-yee." So saying it should be spelled in a way that would favor the original Romanization (if you can forgive an American his z) over a useful spelling is putting history over utility, which is (1) unhelpfully British, and (2) irrelevant because it's a different country making the rules here. "We refuse to adopt the world standard on principle" is, to be honest, perfectly fine with me. I'm a diversity globalist, not a conformity globalist. I love imperial measurements and I'm not going to tell the rest of the world how to write.

The only sensible results of this argument are for British accused of misspelling to say, "so what?" while the non-British mock in futility and for the non-British to claim modern linguistic stewardship with a utilitarian defense if Britons glare imperially.
 
2014-05-14 10:57:53 AM  

Bungles: emberposse: I get the feeling you've never read the Guardian. And probably don't get invited to BBQs.You might have eaten nachos though, I can't tell that one.


Sadly I've read the Guardian all too often.

As for nachos: I eat them the way I want. Why would anyone want to read an article telling you how to eat something?

Because nachos are not a common thing in the UK. Yes, they exist, but most people would have only seen them on the menu in a US cinema chain, or think they're essentially a bag of Doritos eaten like crisps..

It's not more odd than an article in the US on how to peel a durian.


Bingo. When I eat Japanese, I use chopsticks. I didn't come into the world knowing how to use them. Likewise, the British are not born knowing how to eat with their hands. It's been bred out of their instincts.
 
2014-05-14 11:10:54 AM  

Wangiss: iron de havilland: ciberido: Náhuatl, by the way, didn't have an alphabet until the Spanish arrived and imposed theirs, which renders any sort of etymological argument moot.


Other than the fact that the first Romanisation of chilli/chili/chile was "chilli".

And that's fine for etymology lessons, but arguing against the only way the inventor of chili con carne could have spelled the name of the culinary dish is preposterous at this point. Chilli would be pronounced "chee-yee." So saying it should be spelled in a way that would favor the original Romanization (if you can forgive an American his z) over a useful spelling is putting history over utility, which is (1) unhelpfully British, and (2) irrelevant because it's a different country making the rules here. "We refuse to adopt the world standard on principle" is, to be honest, perfectly fine with me. I'm a diversity globalist, not a conformity globalist. I love imperial measurements and I'm not going to tell the rest of the world how to write.

The only sensible results of this argument are for British accused of misspelling to say, "so what?" while the non-British mock in futility and for the non-British to claim modern linguistic stewardship with a utilitarian defense if Britons glare imperially.


Troof.
 
2014-05-14 11:21:53 AM  
You'd be surprised how available nachos are in the UK.

They are on the "Hungry Horse" menus in pub restaurant chains. We have branches of "Chiquitos" and "Las Iguanas" around the UK selling nachos.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report