Recent Comments

1. 2 days ago on Ziggy

   The ruling by the Supreme Court was made in 1893.

   www.Youtube.Com/watch?v=fXj_a1qS2pA

2. 2 days ago on Ziggy

   “Seeds on the inside, fruit. Seeds on the outside, veggie. Simple.”

   By that logic, you would then need to argue that strawberries are veggies because their seeds are on the outside, no?

3. 3 days ago on Ziggy

   I’m not surprised at all that the Supreme Court ruled that tomatoes are veggies. The reason for their ruling in the first place is because a few years earlier, a tax had been placed on vegetables but not fruits, and tomatoes were being taxed as veggies since that is how people consumed them. However, a tomato farmer named John Nix argued for a fruit-classification because he was trying to avoid paying the vegetable-tax. Yet, if the tax had been placed on fruits instead of veggies, and if tomatoes were then taxed as fruits, Nix would have clearing switched sides and argued just as passionately that tomatoes should be classified as veggies so as to avoid the fruit-tax. Hence, the reason the court ruled 9-0 against him is because they knew that he wasn’t fighting for “scientific truth” but rather for mere profit. The other reason for their ruling is that they knew that if tomatoes were legally classified as fruits, the same ruling would then need to apply to cucumbers, peppers, olives, and so many other foods that we consume as vegetables – and that would have been just plain dumb.

4. 5 days ago on Reality Check

   Because he’s not “Kenough” for her.

5. 8 days ago on Wizard of Id

   I’m not a gambling man, but if I was, I’d bet on Hagar to win.

6. 17 days ago on Ziggy

   Thank you for your grace and understanding, my friend. The latest joke-story you sent was indeed quite funny – and I’m not just saying that because I’m a quarter-Irish myself. Have a great evening. :)

7. 17 days ago on Ziggy

   With all due respect, I’ve never found that line particularly funny because the context is never properly explained. Case in point: Suppose someone took this quote and replaced the word “tomato” with “cucumber” or “pickle” or “red pepper” or any other botanical fruit which is culinary-classified as a vegetable. Would the quote be just as funny then? Logically, it should because the rationale for claiming that tomatoes are fruits would also apply to many other foods that we eat as vegetables and would even apply to plants that we don’t eat at all like acorns and dandelions – and yet claiming these other items are fruits just doesn’t appeal to people and can actually come across as annoying. Please view the linked five-minute video for further insight if you wish to discuss this further. Thanks.

   www.Youtube.Com/watch?v=fXj_a1qS2pA

8. 17 days ago on Ziggy

   For what it’s worth, I know you were just trying to have some fun with your original comment, and I’m sorry if I ruined that for you; however, I’m just weary of the line you quoted because I feel the line can be misleading due to its lack of properly detailed context. For if you replace the word “tomato” in the line with “green pepper” or “cucumber” or “olive” or any other botanical fruit which is culinary-classified as a vegetable, I think you could then agree the joke would not be funny anymore and would actually be annoying to the average person. And this is why I advise people against using it. Hope you can understand that. Peace.

9. 17 days ago on Ziggy

   I don’t think the jokes you recited are really comparable to the tomato-fruit joke because that joke sounds like a line that’s actually trying to take itself seriously. Those other jokes of yours meanwhile are clearly not meant to be serious, which is why they actually succeed in being funny. Please see the reply I sent you on the other thread above.

10. 17 days ago on Ziggy

    Although I don’t wish to engage in a never-ending debate, I do have just a couple points to make for clarity. First, regarding the SCOTUS case, John Nix was only arguing for a fruit-classification because he was trying to avoid paying the vegetable-tariff wherein tomatoes were being taxed as veggies. If the tariff had been placed on fruits instead of veggies, and if tomatoes were then taxed as fruits, Nix would have switched sides and argued just as passionately that tomatoes should be classified as veggies so as to avoid the fruit-tax. Hence, the reason why the court ruled 9-0 against him is because they knew that he wasn’t fighting for “scientific truth” but rather for mere profit. The other reason for their ruling is that they knew that if tomatoes were legally classified as fruits, the same ruling would then need to apply to cucumbers, peppers, olives, and so many other foods that we consume as vegetables. In other words, if you are going to recite the joke that tomatoes are fruits but don’t belong in fruit salads, you should say the same about red peppers and see just how unfunny your irked audience finds your humor.

    I had stated earlier in this thread that it would be helpful to have a sort of church-and-state type of separation between the botanical and culinary definitions and to not let one cross over into the other. In other words, when having a conversation about food wherein tomatoes are referred to as veggies, I don’t think it’s funny nor appropriate to chime in and say that “actually they’re fruits” because in the culinary context, they are not.

    As for your question about whether salad is part of the main meal or just an appetizer, my answer is that an appetizer is technically just an optional part of the main meal, just like a vegetable soup (which contains tomatoes) or a glass of vegetable juice (which consists mainly of tomato juice). Hope that helps.