Transient thoughts in Shirley's Mind

I keep a notepad on me pretty much all the time because these little thoughts pop in and disappear pretty quickly, never to surface again, leaving me to walk around distracted mumbling to myself saying, " What was it about a sandwich I wanted to ask the SDMB? ahhh crap."

After collecting a few of them, I have decided to pester my pals here for the answers. Here you have a minute collection of the Best of Shirley’s Brain Farts for the Summer of 2000.

  1. Before the Earl of Sandwich gave his name to the sandwich, what word was used to describe anything “sandwiched”. IE pressed between two surfaces?

2)Shaken, not stirred. Would it make a difference?

3)When did the word GAY come into effect to mean homosexual? Does it have anything to do with Paris?

  1. If God created the earth (Adam/Eve and all that) then how do creationist explain fossil fuel?
    I didn’t say these were good brain farts, but I had to get them off my chest.
  1. Food.

  2. Yes, shaken bruises the ice.

  3. Dunno here. But I would guess there are experts that can cover this one.

  4. You are under the impression that fossil fuel is actually from fossils. And under the impression that the answer ‘because God put them there’ isn’t good enough to the people you would ask that question to.

I would be interested in what this means. :slight_smile:
Zette

Stand back whilst I perform an ignorancectomy on this poor, wretched woman (Hi Shirley!).

  1. I believe the proper term, in english, was “pressed between two surfaces”. The good Earl certainly saved us modern folk some syllables, didn’t he?

  2. Think about it, Shirley. Could Elvis have stirred pre-pubescent souls unless he had first shaken his booty?

  3. I’m pretty sure the French had something to do with it.

  4. Fossils had no fuel. Didn’t you ever watch The Flintstones?

My work here is done, people. Please, don’t thank me. I must be off to remove more ignorance, wherever it may be found.

um…depending on your preference, yes, it may just make a difference…

shaking tends to break up more of the ice cubes, and hence those little slivers of ice melt more rapidly, and you CAN end up with a more watered-down version and taste of your drink.

some prefer it this way. ::shudder::

stirring is a more gentle way of mixing and keeping the original, stronger taste of the drink.

of course, I’m she-who-lit-the-bar-on-fire-while-concocting-a-cocktail once…sigh…

This has got to have a cool story to go with it. Please share it.

When the weight of the world has got you down and you want to end your life.
Bills to pay, a dead-end job, and problems with the wife.
But don’t throw in the tow’l, 'cuz there’s a place right down the block…
Where you can drink your misery away…
At Flaming Dyl’s
(Let’s all go to Flaming Dyl’s
When liquor in a mug
(Let’s all go to Flaming Dyl’s…)
can warm you like a hug.
(Flaming Dyl’s…)
And happiness is just a Flaming Dyl away…
Happiness is just a Flaming Dyl away…
I can’t be the only one who thought that.

Dylan, your “Indian” name is so much cooler. Tell us the story please?

She-who-can-never-remember-what-that-drink-was-she-liked-so-much-and-must-therefore-try-all-of-them-again…(well, it worked in college!)

From she-who-spends-far-too-much-time-in-bars-&-with-bartenders…

I never understood Bonds facination with a shaken martini. If you shake them, they are cloudy. If you stir them, they are clear.

  1. I think things were more properly referred to as “between two starched planes”. Or, less frequently, “oreoed”.

  2. If he didn’t say it, nobody would know he was “Bond. James Bond.” Since his physical appearance ranges all the way from Timothy Dalton to Woody Allen, it’s important we have as many audible clues as possible.

  3. It’s an old, old usage but it goes in and out of fashion, becoming more common when homosexuality is more accepted and vice versa.

  4. One explanation I’ve heard is that God created the earth pretty much as scientists say it happened, but that He was directing the outcome (with which strict evolutionists would not agree). Some creationists, however, don’t accept any explanation that takes longer than 6,000 years. Others take refuge in a verse in Hebrews (sorry I can’t give you chapter and verse) that goes roughly, “things were not made of things which appear”. In other words, God made it that way to suit His purposes; don’t read too much into the fossil record. [soapbox] My personal opinion is that we don’t know all there is to know about creation or evolution, and we certainly don’t know enough to synthesize the two. So for now, each is useful in its sphere and when we really understand them both we’ll wonder what all the confusion was about. [/soapbox]

  1. One creationist explanation for the fossils, is that lots of critters; the smallest and simplest first, then the larger and more complex; were washed away into low-lying areas during the flood (the one that involved Noah and the ark) and the extreme pressure, fast burial by silt and the sheer numbers of carcasses resulted in a whole lot of fossils, coal, and oil. The smaller, simpler creatures were found at the bottom layers because they were washed away first.