You funny little man:) You are a precious one, you know that?
They are just so cute when their brains drip out of their ears like that…
So what ally do we have cook? “English chef” is even more an oxymoron than “French war hero”…
G, D, RLH
oh goodie!
let’s start on french food!
snails in butter and garlic! Yumm!
fish eggs! good and slimy (yeah, I know - you stole it from the russians)
and what is the name of the little bird eaten whole in one bite (the diner wears a napkin over his/her head to keep from splattering those nearby - or is that just to keep from grossing them out?) (is it possible to eat anything that would gross out a frenchman?)
and are the french still trying to assert that only sparkling wines from france can be called “champaign”? has anyone listened?
Loved the arrogance of that demand.
actually, just a region of France - the Champaign region. that’s reasonable. Kinda like saying REAL German beer has to be imported from Germany.
Well, you know, since wines are generally named after the region they were grown in, then they have a point. They call the wines grown in Champage by that name, and since the champagne grown over here isn’t from somewhere called that, then it isn’t the same thing. Effectively it isn’t, but by the naming system of Europe, it isn’t.
And I happen to really like snails in butter. They have the most awesome steaks too. French food is wonderful, and I guess you just haven’t had REAL French food in France, or you acted like the “obnoxious american”, so they in turn acted like the “arrogant french.” It goes both ways. You get what you give.
Or that Vidalia onions come from the Vidalia region of Georgia.
Honestly, the idea of defending the reputation of a product by controlling the use of its name is not exactly a novel idea. And in the case of Champagne, producers in other regions can still use the phrase “methode champenoise,” which gets the point across without implying that their product is from the Champagne region.
I meant, effectively it is
I, for one, am still waiting to hear how the actions of a government extend to its people being a bunch of spineless swine. Unless that’s not what you’re saying either. If not, please tell us what point you are trying to make.
Don’t see any solid arguments coming from you either, hh
yes, the vidalia controversy reminded me of the champagne deal - only the french were demanding that american wineries be forbidden to use the term for their ‘sparkling wines’ - make any rules you like for your country, but trying to reclaim a term that has passed on to common usage in another country id a tad pathetic.
(yes, I know the origin of the word, and I understand that the stuff from sonoma county is not from france - I really don’t need the frence wine industry to start trademarking words - what next - ‘burgundy’ can no longer be used to name a color?)
peasea -
does the mass capitulation of the french to the germans not count for anything?
again, how many were really active in the FF?
once you get that number, you can try to refute the ‘surrender monkey’ image.
and, do try to read the entire thread. especially the part before the little monkeys decided to be cute in a language few here can understand (and thought they were ever so clever).
and, while you’re up, could you check out that point re. the maginot line’s guns?
thank you
happyheathen, you still have not responded to the question posed to you by MANY of us.
How does the French capitulating in the war, mean that CURRENT french people are surrender monkeys? These are those people’s grandchildren for chrissakes!!!
Repeat after me…THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
are the current generation ‘surrender monkeys’?
won’t know for sure until they get a chance to surrender, but - their parents/grandparents/great-grandparents (depending on which generation we are talking about) did.
that’s the kind of thing that fosters a country’s reputation/characterzation.
and yes, in a republic, the govt. DOES represent the people, so chirac’s actions are those of france, ergo the french.
any other definitional q’s?
on the plus side, the franco-prussian war was less one-sided.
Yes, the government does represent the people, I never said it didn’t. Chirac’s actions are those of France. That doesn’t mean that everyone in France agrees with those actions and thinks he’s the greatest thing since sliced bread (which they don’t like that much anyway, at least the kind with preservatives in it).
What I’m saying is that while one can disagree with the policies of the government or the actions of certain individuals, if you generalize those actions of a select few to the people in general, you’re going to get slapped down. And you are generalizing based on a select few.
This thread is too damn ugly. I’ll have to go through it when I’m calmer, but for now, I’m shutting it down.