Remember Me?

 Straight Dope Message Board Remember Me?

#1
03-11-2017, 08:37 PM
 Green Bean Guest Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: NJ, Exit #137 Posts: 12,024
How Long Would It Take One Person to Eat a Blue Whale?

Assume they eat 2,500 calories of whale per day.
#2
03-11-2017, 08:50 PM
 HoneyBadgerDC Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Torrance Ca Posts: 7,897
I would guess between 150 and 200 years.

Last edited by HoneyBadgerDC; 03-11-2017 at 08:51 PM.
#3
03-11-2017, 09:01 PM
 Thudlow Boink Charter Member Join Date: May 2000 Location: Lincoln, IL Posts: 25,886
#4
03-11-2017, 09:06 PM
 engineer_comp_geek Robot Mod in Beta Testing Moderator Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 22,606
As a practical matter, the blue whale is going to turn into a rotten carcass and decay long before a person could eat it.

Getting into "assume a spherical cow" type calculations where we ignore rot, and just base this on size and general calories, we can plug through the math and see what kind of silly answer we get.

I don't know the caloric content of a blue whale. Some googling shows that cows weigh about a thousand pounds, and one cow can make about a thousand quarter-pound burgers. With each burger coming in at roughly 300 calories, this give a typical cow about 300,000 calories. Admittedly, this ignores non-burger stuff that we eat, but since I also don't know how meaty a blue whale is, let's just run with these numbers and see what happens.

A blue whale (again according to google) weighs about 300,000 lbs, or as much as about 300 cows. Assuming a roughly similar caloric content per weight as cows, this puts our blue whale at 90,000,000 calories.

Divide that by 2500 calories per day, and you end up with 36,000 days, or a bit shy of 100 years.

Last edited by engineer_comp_geek; 03-11-2017 at 09:07 PM.
#5
03-12-2017, 05:06 PM
 DesertDog Charter Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Mesa, Ariz. Posts: 4,597
Quote:
 Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek As a practical matter, the blue whale is going to turn into a rotten carcass and decay long before a person could eat it.
What if you had a really big freezer?

And a lot of Tupperware?
#6
03-12-2017, 05:36 PM
 HoneyBadgerDC Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Torrance Ca Posts: 7,897
Quote:
 Originally Posted by DesertDog What if you had a really big freezer? And a lot of Tupperware?
I live in So Cal so jerky would be my only option.
#7
03-13-2017, 01:35 PM
 DrDeth Charter Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: San Jose Posts: 38,135
Quote:
 Originally Posted by DesertDog What if you had a really big freezer? And a lot of Tupperware?
Like, say the Arctic?

My Dad grew up with the Eskimo, and one small whale fed a entire village for quite some time.
#8
03-13-2017, 07:41 PM
 Marvin the Martian Member Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA Posts: 1,059
Quote:
 Originally Posted by DrDeth Like, say the Arctic?
For now. Who knows by the time you're polishing up the last of the whale...
#9
03-11-2017, 09:37 PM
 astro Guest Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: Taint of creation Posts: 33,150
http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/sites/defau...f_wildlife.pdf

This is what Canadian natives would eat so this is about real world accurate as you are going to get. Scale up from the Beluga whale edible weight listed which is 300-500 lbs per whale with a body weight of 2000 - 3000 lbs for about a 6 to 1 ratio. Blue whales are 100x as large so a 250,000 lb blue whale would yield about 40,000 lbs of edible meat-skin-fat. Assuming a calorie load of 37% meat 63% muktuk

whale meat (no fat is about 481 cals per lb -

Muktuk skin+fat is 2106 cals per lb

so 40,000 lbs x .37 = 14,800 lbs lean meat and x .63 = 25,200 lbs of muktuk
53,071,200 calories of muktuk +7,118,800 of lean meat = 60,190,000 edible calories in a blue whale / 2500 per day = 24,076 days or 65.96 years

Last edited by astro; 03-11-2017 at 09:41 PM.
#10
03-11-2017, 09:53 PM
 harmonicamoon Guest Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Yucatan, Mexico Posts: 2,887
So, we are going to have a few years supply.

How is blue whale meat generally served?

Any good recipes for whale meat/muktuk?
#11
03-11-2017, 10:13 PM
 Weisshund Guest Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 1,768
Quote:
 Originally Posted by harmonicamoon How is blue whale meat generally served? Any good recipes for whale meat/muktuk?
i believe its eaten raw?
#12
03-11-2017, 10:17 PM
 Green Bean Guest Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: NJ, Exit #137 Posts: 12,024
Assume it won't rot.

My seat-of-the-pants calculations got me 149 years, but I figured you guys would come up with a better approach.

The question came up as a result of a "name the worst possible housepet" contest, which was handily won by my 8 year old niece. As unpleasant as a pet alligator or skunk might be, we all had to admit that the practical realities of trying to house a blue whale trumped all other considerations. In trying to come up with something positive to say about the prospect of a pet blue whale, I said, "well, if you got sick of keeping it as a pet, you could just eat it." The question of how long that would take was inevitable.

Now, the reason we were all together was to celebrate my mom's 75th birthday, now also known as "halfway done eating that whale."

Of course, if astro's calculations are correct, she'd already be finished.
#13
03-13-2017, 12:12 PM
 Blue Blistering Barnacle Guest Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 6,393
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Green Bean Assume it won't rot. My seat-of-the-pants calculations got me 149 years, but I figured you guys would come up with a better approach. The question came up as a result of a "name the worst possible housepet" contest, which was handily won by my 8 year old niece. As unpleasant as a pet alligator or skunk might be, we all had to admit that the practical realities of trying to house a blue whale trumped all other considerations. In trying to come up with something positive to say about the prospect of a pet blue whale, I said, "well, if you got sick of keeping it as a pet, you could just eat it." The question of how long that would take was inevitable. Now, the reason we were all together was to celebrate my mom's 75th birthday, now also known as "halfway done eating that whale." Of course, if astro's calculations are correct, she'd already be finished.
When I was a kid, I saw a cartoon which lives with me to this day.

Two cavemen, contemplating a 'brontosaurus'* in the middle distance (midground?). One says to the other, "I'd kill one of those, but then it would be brontosaurus, day in and day out for a month!"

*Yes, when I was a kid, it was literally true that brontosaurs walked the earth (at one time). Then everything's name got changed, and by the time the dust settled, Pluto was no longer a planet. Now, get off my lawn!
#14
03-12-2017, 09:27 AM
 LSLGuy Charter Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Southeast Florida USA Posts: 21,035
Quote:
 Originally Posted by harmonicamoon So, we are going to have a few years supply. How is blue whale meat generally served? Any good recipes for whale meat/muktuk?
It seems astro's got the best calculation. So we're going to need 65 years worth of "good" recipes. That's a tall / long / heavy order!
#15
03-12-2017, 12:45 PM
 John Mace Charter Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: South Bay Posts: 85,197
Quote:
 Originally Posted by LSLGuy It seems astro's got the best calculation.
I think that was a fluke.
#16
03-11-2017, 09:14 PM
 iiandyiiii Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 31,613
For a dedicated musher, it's only about 38 years and 8 months. The arctic chill keeps the whale nice and fresh for years, too. If his dog team gets to chow down too, the time can be cut to less than 5 years.

Don't ask me how I know this.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-11-2017 at 09:15 PM.
#17
03-11-2017, 09:23 PM
 Weisshund Guest Join Date: Dec 2016 Posts: 1,768
Quote:
 Originally Posted by iiandyiiii For a dedicated musher, it's only about 38 years and 8 months. The arctic chill keeps the whale nice and fresh for years, too. If his dog team gets to chow down too, the time can be cut to less than 5 years. Don't ask me how I know this.
Er what about freezer burn? yuck

5 years, for a great blue whale?
173 metric tons
110 feet long

I could not eat that in a life time
#18
03-11-2017, 11:08 PM
 SigMan Guest Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Texas Posts: 799
Boy, talk about a lot of BarBQing!
#19
03-12-2017, 07:12 AM
 kaylasdad99 Charter Member Join Date: Sep 1999 Location: Anaheim, CA Posts: 30,301
Grilling.
#20
03-12-2017, 07:31 AM
 iiandyiiii Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Arlington, VA Posts: 31,613
Braise the whales!
#21
03-13-2017, 07:30 PM
 gigi Member Join Date: Apr 2000 Location: Flatlander in NH Posts: 25,528
Quote:
 Originally Posted by iiandyiiii Braise the whales!
I'd krill for some braised whale right about now.
#22
03-13-2017, 07:37 PM
 Ambivalid Guest Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: In my head Posts: 13,317
I wonder what whale tastes like? Chicken, prolly.
#23
03-13-2017, 08:00 PM
 scr4 Member Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Alabama Posts: 15,012
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Ambivalid I wonder what whale tastes like? Chicken, prolly.
It's much closer to beef or mutton. It's a mammal, remember.
#24
03-13-2017, 10:32 PM
 TokyoBayer Guest Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Taiwan Posts: 9,616
Quote:
 Originally Posted by scr4 It's much closer to beef or mutton. It's a mammal, remember.
But more oily.

Whale meat was used in school lunches for a long time and a lot of Japanese don't particularly have fond memories of it.
#25
03-13-2017, 10:46 PM
 Ambivalid Guest Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: In my head Posts: 13,317
Quote:
 Originally Posted by scr4 It's much closer to beef or mutton. It's a mammal, remember.
Yeah the "tastes like chicken" part was just a joke.
#26
03-16-2017, 07:17 PM
 Angstwulf Guest Join Date: Feb 2012 Posts: 1
Quote:
 Originally Posted by gigi I'd krill for some braised whale right about now.
Stop spouting off that nonsense.
#27
03-12-2017, 10:33 AM
 Nansbread1 Guest Join Date: Jan 2016 Location: England Posts: 308
You will die of various ailments due to eating raw whale meat and blubber first.
#28
03-12-2017, 11:57 AM
 harmonicamoon Guest Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Yucatan, Mexico Posts: 2,887
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Nansbread1 You will die of various ailments due to eating raw whale meat and blubber first.
Splendid. If there are no consumers, the meat will last even longer.
#29
03-12-2017, 12:07 PM
 Green Bean Guest Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: NJ, Exit #137 Posts: 12,024
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Nansbread1 You will die of various ailments due to eating raw whale meat and blubber first.
Assume no ill health effects from the all-whale diet.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by LSLGuy It seems astro's got the best calculation. So we're going to need 65 years worth of "good" recipes. That's a tall / long / heavy order!
I think the weak link in astro's calculations is the assumption that the blue whale will have the same proportion of edible to non-edible material as a whale 100x as small and of a different species as well. I think the larger animal would at least have a greater proportion of edible weight, and the meat/muktuk proportion would probably be different as well.

But he definitely offers the best approach so far, and the caloric values of the meat and muktuk are probably similar between the species. So we just need to adjust for the different proportions.

So, anybody know anything about blue whale anatomy?
#30
03-12-2017, 12:52 PM
 astro Guest Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: Taint of creation Posts: 33,150
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Green Bean Assume no ill health effects from the all-whale diet. I think the weak link in astro's calculations is the assumption that the blue whale will have the same proportion of edible to non-edible material as a whale 100x as small and of a different species as well. I think the larger animal would at least have a greater proportion of edible weight, and the meat/muktuk proportion would probably be different as well. But he definitely offers the best approach so far, and the caloric values of the meat and muktuk are probably similar between the species. So we just need to adjust for the different proportions. So, anybody know anything about blue whale anatomy?
The most accurate large whale yield figures you could get are probably old science journal papers on whalers who kept fairly accurate figures for whale dimensions and rendered oil yield but I'm not sure they calculated meat yield or even kept the meat. I'm sure some scientific expeditions caught smaller whales and ate them and measured meat yield but I do not have access to this data.

Plus meat yield to a non-native English scientist may not include the muktuk which many (it is an acquired taste by all accounts) would consider inedible wastage vs the flesh. If we're just talking lean whale "meat" as something westerners would eat the yield numbers are much smaller.
#31
03-12-2017, 01:33 PM
 EdelweissPirate Guest Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: Portland, OR USA Posts: 257
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Green Bean I think the larger animal would at least have a greater proportion of edible weight So, anybody know anything about blue whale anatomy?
Actually, it goes the other way: bone mass does not increase linearly with body mass, but rather with mass raised to the power of 1.09. So if a blue whale is 100 times the size of a smaller whale, we'd expect its ones to be 151 times as big as the smaller whale's. This suggests a smaller proportion of edible material from the larger whale.

Galileo was one of the first to notice this nonlinearity. Here's an account of Galileo's take on things and how that correlates to the observable world:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/cla...LEOSCALING.pdf
#32
03-12-2017, 02:39 PM
 HoneyBadgerDC Member Join Date: Jul 2012 Location: Torrance Ca Posts: 7,897
Quote:
 Originally Posted by EdelweissPirate Actually, it goes the other way: bone mass does not increase linearly with body mass, but rather with mass raised to the power of 1.09. So if a blue whale is 100 times the size of a smaller whale, we'd expect its ones to be 151 times as big as the smaller whale's. This suggests a smaller proportion of edible material from the larger whale. Galileo was one of the first to notice this nonlinearity. Here's an account of Galileo's take on things and how that correlates to the observable world: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/cla...LEOSCALING.pdf
I have always been facinated with the concept of scaling things that actually do work.

In the case of the whale being almost weightless in water I am not so sure galileo's theory here would hold true. Some very large fish use cartilage instead of bone.
#33
03-12-2017, 04:09 PM
 Green Bean Guest Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: NJ, Exit #137 Posts: 12,024
Quote:
 Originally Posted by astro Plus meat yield to a non-native English scientist may not include the muktuk which many (it is an acquired taste by all accounts) would consider inedible wastage vs the flesh. If we're just talking lean whale "meat" as something westerners would eat the yield numbers are much smaller.
I was figuring it as all edible parts being eaten, including organ meats, so muktuk woyld definitely be included.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by EdelweissPirate Actually, it goes the other way: bone mass does not increase linearly with body mass, but rather with mass raised to the power of 1.09. So if a blue whale is 100 times the size of a smaller whale, we'd expect its ones to be 151 times as big as the smaller whale's. This suggests a smaller proportion of edible material from the larger whale. Galileo was one of the first to notice this nonlinearity. Here's an account of Galileo's take on things and how that correlates to the observable world: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/cla...LEOSCALING.pdf
Hm, interesting.

I realize too that I was envisioning a blue whale as being of a greater relative girth than it actually is, probably as a result of cartoon depictions!
#34
03-12-2017, 04:44 PM
 ftg Guest Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Not the PNW :-( Posts: 18,139
All these posts and no "Need answer fast?" joke. Sigh.
#35
03-16-2017, 09:17 PM
 markn+ Guest Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: unknown; Speed: exactly 0 Posts: 1,803
Quote:
 Originally Posted by EdelweissPirate Actually, it goes the other way: bone mass does not increase linearly with body mass, but rather with mass raised to the power of 1.09. So if a blue whale is 100 times the size of a smaller whale, we'd expect its ones to be 151 times as big as the smaller whale's. This suggests a smaller proportion of edible material from the larger whale.
The approximate exponent of 1.09 was derived from terrestrial animals, which support their weight on their bones. As HoneyBadgerDC mentioned, whales are aquatic and don't support their weight using their bones, so whale bones could be proportionally lighter than terrestrial animals' bones.

The Canadian Museum of Nature has a blue whale skeleton from an animal that is estimated to have weighed 80-90 tonnes. Based on the formula in your link (bones = 0.061 * animal1.09), the bones would be predicted to weigh 13,000-15,000 kg, but in fact they only weigh 2883 kg.
#36
03-17-2017, 06:27 AM
 Darren Garrison Guest Join Date: Oct 2016 Posts: 8,913
Quote:
 Originally Posted by markn+ The approximate exponent of 1.09 was derived from terrestrial animals, which support their weight on their bones. As HoneyBadgerDC mentioned, whales are aquatic and don't support their weight using their bones, so whale bones could be proportionally lighter than terrestrial animals' bones.
Actually, while I don't know off the top of my head about whales, some aquatic mammals have heaver bones than land mammals to act as ballast

Quote:
 The Canadian Museum of Nature has a blue whale skeleton from an animal that is estimated to have weighed 80-90 tonnes. Based on the formula in your link (bones = 0.061 * animal1.09), the bones would be predicted to weigh 13,000-15,000 kg, but in fact they only weigh 2883 kg.
This could be affected by the fact that whales do not have (significant) long limb bones.
#37
03-12-2017, 01:02 PM
 aceplace57 Guest Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: CentralArkansas Posts: 24,600
Don't forget to factor out the weight of the oil.

One whale fueled a bunch of lamps in Colonial times.
#38
03-13-2017, 10:53 AM
 muldoonthief Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North of Boston Posts: 10,519
Quote:
 Originally Posted by aceplace57 Don't forget to factor out the weight of the oil. One whale fueled a bunch of lamps in Colonial times.
Why would you factor it out? Whale oil is rendered down from the blubber, which in all the above calculations is being eaten, not discarded.
#39
03-13-2017, 08:36 AM
 Tom P. Charter Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Norway Posts: 163
Norwegian Wikipedia refers to a blue whale caught in 1947 by a Japanese whaler. It weighed 136353kg, and had 60962kg meat and 19812kg of blubber. (60962kg is about 134000 pounds of meat). The maximum weight ever recorded seems to be 173000kg, so this whale is smaller that, but I guess the total/meat/blubber ratio is the same.

Using just the meat from above (so no organs or blubber):

Whale meat (no species indicated in the source I found) gives about 120kcal/100g, so at 2500 kcal/day your caloric intake is covered for about 30000 days or around 80 years of eating nothing but around 4 pounds of blue whale meat every day.

#40
03-13-2017, 11:09 AM
 astro Guest Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: Taint of creation Posts: 33,150
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Tom P. Norwegian Wikipedia refers to a blue whale caught in 1947 by a Japanese whaler. It weighed 136353kg, and had 60962kg meat and 19812kg of blubber. (60962kg is about 134000 pounds of meat). The maximum weight ever recorded seems to be 173000kg, so this whale is smaller that, but I guess the total/meat/blubber ratio is the same. Using just the meat from above (so no organs or blubber): Whale meat (no species indicated in the source I found) gives about 120kcal/100g, so at 2500 kcal/day your caloric intake is covered for about 30000 days or around 80 years of eating nothing but around 4 pounds of blue whale meat every day. Frankly, I'd recommend a salad instead.
This link which is derived from whales that were actually caught and consumed indicates a lean meat to skin blubber ration of 37% lean meat - 63% muktuk (skin- blubber). The Norwegian cite above indicates a 3 to 1 ratio of (assumed lean) meat to blubber.

Re calories you are using just lean meat calories not meat + skin-blubber calories in your calculation.

Last edited by astro; 03-13-2017 at 11:11 AM.
#41
03-13-2017, 12:15 PM
 Blue Blistering Barnacle Guest Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 6,393
What's the best part of a Blue whale? Sharks seem to like the tongue. The hagfish on the ocean floor seem to like the blubber. What do humans seem to like?
#42
03-13-2017, 01:07 PM
 scr4 Member Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Alabama Posts: 15,012
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Blue Blistering Barnacle What's the best part of a Blue whale?
In Japan, Onomi (literally "tail meat") is the most expensive cut of whale meat. It is a marbled meat at the base of the tail fin of larger baleen whales like fin whales and blue whales. (Other whales have the equivalent meat but it's not marbled to the same extent.) More info on Wikipedia.

Last edited by scr4; 03-13-2017 at 01:09 PM.
#43
03-13-2017, 01:31 PM
 Blue Blistering Barnacle Guest Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 6,393
I call the Onomi!
#44
03-13-2017, 02:14 PM
 Blue Blistering Barnacle Guest Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 6,393
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Cayuga Good news! Brontosaurus walks the earth again! I mean, they walked the earth at one time again. They once walked the earth again. Hell, just click the link.

Well, "Bully for Brontosaurus!"*

*My pet solution to the brontosaurus problem would be to use brontosaurus as the name for generic giant dinosaur that is "skinny on one end, thick in the middle, and skinny at the other end" (paraphrasing Anne Elk). Guess that's no longer possible.
#45
03-13-2017, 04:49 PM
 TSBG Guest Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 2,330
There are restaurants in Iceland that serve whale--most likely not blue whale. I was once told that the cuts came from one whale in a deep freeze, taken before Iceland gave up whaling, but apparently that is not the case--they're still whaling.

In conclusion, please don't eat actual whale.
#46
03-14-2017, 05:49 PM
 MacLir Guest Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 621
Quote:
 Originally Posted by TSBG There are restaurants in Iceland that serve whale--most likely not blue whale. I was once told that the cuts came from one whale in a deep freeze, taken before Iceland gave up whaling, but apparently that is not the case--they're still whaling. In conclusion, please don't eat actual whale.
Unless you grew up eating it, you likely wouldn't like it anyway.

Imagine the toughest, stringiest piece of chuck steak you ever had. Now cook it in sardine oil. That's what whale is like, as I remember it. (From long before Greenpeace and the Marine Mammal Protection Act) Blue whale, as I recall, but I was young at the time.
#47
03-13-2017, 05:58 PM
 Darren Garrison Guest Join Date: Oct 2016 Posts: 8,913
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Blue Blistering Barnacle *My pet solution to the brontosaurus problem would be to use brontosaurus as the name for generic giant dinosaur that is "skinny on one end, thick in the middle, and skinny at the other end" (paraphrasing Anne Elk). Guess that's no longer possible.
Never was possible. There is already a term for that--sauropod.
#48
03-13-2017, 10:53 PM
 Blue Blistering Barnacle Guest Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 6,393
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Darren Garrison Never was possible. There is already a term for that--sauropod.

Why is sauropod better than brontosaur?

Anyway, eating whale beats slurping goo in Zion.
#49
03-14-2017, 03:59 PM
 Lumpy Charter Member Join Date: Aug 1999 Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US Posts: 16,153
(sorry to continue the hijack, but...)

I think the name "Brontosaurus" should be preserved for the now-fictional sauropod that was thought to be semi-aquatic, staying mostly underwater like a hippopotamus. E.g., in the original King Kong movie the raft was overturned by a Brontosaurus.
#50
03-14-2017, 05:14 PM
 snfaulkner Guest Join Date: May 2015 Location: 123 Fake Street Posts: 6,941
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Lumpy I think the name "Brontosaurus" should be preserved for the now-fictional sauropod that was thought to be semi-aquatic, staying mostly underwater like a hippopotamus. E.g., in the original King Kong movie the raft was overturned by a Brontosaurus.
Dude! Spoilers!

 Bookmarks

 Thread Tools Display Modes Hybrid Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is Off HTML code is Off Forum Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Main     About This Message Board     Comments on Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports     General Questions     Great Debates     Elections     Cafe Society     The Game Room     Thread Games     In My Humble Opinion (IMHO)     Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share (MPSIMS)     Marketplace     The BBQ Pit

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:30 AM.

 -- Straight Dope v3.7.3 -- Sultantheme's Responsive vB3-blue Contact Us - Straight Dope Homepage - Archive - Top

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com