| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
 Posted - 01/02/2003 : 16:11:40
|
is a chocolate chip cookie without chocolate chips called a "chipless chocolate chip cookie", just a "cookie", or something more specific? been having this argument in school today
-miked |
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2003 : 16:19:25
|
| It's called a cookie. If there were no chips in the first place, how would it be called a "chipless chocolate chip cookie"? By that logic, all cookies without chocolate chip would be called chipless chocolate chip cookies. |
 |
|
|
ramona
"FB Quote Mistress"
USA
3988 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2003 : 16:29:17
|
| Yeah, I agree - it is just a cookie. A peanut butter cookie or a chocolate cookie or a sugar cookie, and so on and so forth. |
|
|
|
matt
- FB Fan -
12 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2003 : 18:20:03
|
No, no, no. If it has all the ingredients of a chocolate chip cookie, less the chocolate chips, then it can only be a chipless chocolate chip cookie. There is no peanut butter in a chocolate chip cookie, nor is there chocolate (apart from the chips). Therefore it could not be a peanut butter cookie or a chocolate cookie. Of course, there is sugar in a chocolate chip cookie, but since a sugar cookie is an entirely different animal, it would not be at all appropriate to call a chipless chocolate chip cookie a sugar cookie.
The proper name could, of course, be something *more* specific than "chipless chocolate chip cookie," but it quite obviously could never be *less* specific than that. I respect your opinions to the contrary, but they're plainly wrong.
I'm very happy to have found this discussion forum. |
|
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2003 : 18:40:56
|
hahah see thats what im saying, its apparently like something people argue over in my area... i knew there had to be atleast one person who sided with chipless chocolate chip cookie
my complaint with that name is that its pretty pretentious. i mean why dont you say peanutbutterless peanut butter cookie, or cocnonutless coconut cookie. youre assuming that if it had the choice it would be a chocolate chip cookie and not any other. maybe we dont all consider chocolate chip the king of cookies?!
-miked |
Edited by - mdisanto on 01/02/2003 18:41:52 |
|
|
|
matt
- FB Fan -
12 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2003 : 19:04:39
|
Well, you make a good point, but by your twisted logic a chipless chocolate chip cookie is actually a peanutbutterless-coconutless-chocolatechipless-porkless-cheeseless (etc. etc.) cookie. Talk about pretentious! And where does it end?
I believe, as all right-thinking people do, that the very essence of the chocolate chip cookie is the chocolate chip. Remove that, and you've nothing left but a chipless chocolate chip cookie.
You are obviously an anarchist, though, and I admire that about you. |
|
|
|
El Barto
= Song DB Master =
USA
4020 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2003 : 20:26:01
|
| But is a chocolate chip cookie without the chips any different than a peanut butter cookie without peanut butter? It seems to me that it's the same cookie. So what, are we gonna be PC and call it a "chipless chocolate chip or peanutbutterless cookie"? |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2003 : 20:54:37
|
I think 'cookie' is appropriate, since the 'base' is pretty similar.
What if you were making chocolate chip cookies, and realized you didn't have chocolate chips and used raisins instead?
There's no way it'd be a chipless chocolate chip raisin cookie.
And besides all this rhetoric, a 'chipless' chocolate chip cookie may very well just be a chocolate cookie.
mmmnnmm..cookies... |
|
|
|
mereubu
= FB QuizMistress =
USA
2677 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2003 : 21:22:31
|
Are you guys baked? Ah, high school philosophical debate . . . I vividly remember an argument that dragged on most tediously over several lunch periods centering on this question: If a vegetable eats another vegetable, is it a cannibal? (To which the only correct answer can be: Who gives a flying fuck? Idiot boys!)
The only thing to call this chipless theoretical cookie is "sin against nature." Flawed, monstrous confection! |
|
|
|
matt
- FB Fan -
12 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2003 : 21:39:19
|
Let's not lose sight of the fact that we (or more precisely, mdisanto) began this conversation by positing a chocolate chip cookie with no chips. You all now appear to say that no such creature exists. If that's true, then a peanutbutterless peanut butter cookie is an absolute impossibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
What if you were making chocolate chip cookies, and realized you didn't have chocolate chips and used raisins instead?
There's no way it'd be a chipless chocolate chip raisin cookie.
That is unquestionably true. But in this example you never had a chocolate chip cookie to begin with. Suppose instead that you did have chips - and in fact included them in the batter - but an individual cookie by chance or Act of God contained no chips. Would any of you really deny (and this is my point) that what you had was a chipless chocolate chip cookie? Is your depravity so profound?
That sort of nihilism is all well and good, but where does it leave us? Denying the human soul, that's where. And I'll have no part of it. |
|
|
|
johndietzel
= Cult of Ray =
Burkina Faso (Upper Volta)
464 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2003 : 22:48:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by mereubu
The only thing to call this chipless theoretical cookie is "sin against nature." Flawed, monstrous confection!
I think MereUbu gets closer to the heart of the matter. A chocolate chip cookie without chips is no more a cookie than a cheesecake without cream cheese is a cake. It's just the leftover ingredients. No self-respecting item would claim the official "title" of cookie in such a sad physical state.
Plus, "cookie" is a general category that encompasses tons of different items, including Oreos, ladyfingers, PB cookies, female genitalia, orgasm, man who cooks, and so on. I think the ChocoChip sans chip cookie either needs its own specific name or must be called "brown sugar, eggs, flour, sugar comestible" or something along those lines.
That just reminded me--sugar cookies without sugar are nothing even remotely resembling a cookie in taste. So the "rule" is absolutely flawed. That's undeniable.
----------------------
"Lance Hunt wears glasses. Captain Amazing doesn't wear glasses."--William "the Shoveler" Macy |
Edited by - johndietzel on 01/02/2003 22:50:39 |
|
|
|
vilainde
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Niue
7443 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 01:04:03
|
Shit, I knew the Captain Amazing quote sounded familiar but I couldn't remember where it came from. Glad to see there are people here who liked this movie. I loved it.
Denis |
|
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 03:49:18
|
well it all started becuase the fact that people were calling it a chipless chocolate chip cookie was absurd to me becuase it was such a waste of words. i mean, it was in like a recipe book and all. it seemed like there has to be a shorter word for it, but cookie seems too ambiguous, becuase people say give me a cookie if theres a tray of cookies, but they could be chocolate chip cookies, but for ease they say cookie just like for ease i dont want to say "chipless chocolate chip cookie"
-miked |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 11:34:50
|
If you wanted to address a bowl full of chocolate chip cookies, peanutbutter cookies, and raisin cookies, you would refer to it as a 'bowl of cookies'.
Even if you had the knowledge that there was a particular 'cookie', which was by design a chocolate chip cookie, but it contained no chocolate chips, you would *still* refer to it as a bowl of cookies, and frankly, it would still be a cookie. Just not of the intended design or desire.
It would be left alone in the dust bowl, like so many rotting cowboys. |
|
|
|
matt
- FB Fan -
12 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 13:05:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
If you wanted to address a bowl full of chocolate chip cookies, peanutbutter cookies, and raisin cookies, you would refer to it as a 'bowl of cookies'.
Even if you had the knowledge that there was a particular 'cookie', which was by design a chocolate chip cookie, but it contained no chocolate chips, you would *still* refer to it as a bowl of cookies, and frankly, it would still be a cookie. Just not of the intended design or desire.
This is only true in the sense that one would refer to an *actual* chocolate chip cookie as a mere "cookie," which is the same sense in which we might refer to, say, a non-mentholated cigarette as a "cigarette." However, this does not (and cannot) alter the fundamental non-mentholatedness of the cigarette any more than it alters the chipless nature of the chipless chocolate chip cookie.
quote:
It would be left alone in the dust bowl, like so many rotting cowboys.
On this point we are entirely agreed, although it seems to me that johndietzel is onto something important, particularly as regards the female genitalia.
|
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 16:51:50
|
| Except, matt, there are plenty of acceptable non-chocolate cookies available. The same cannot be said for ciggies, and i think would null your point.. |
|
|
|
matt
- FB Fan -
12 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 22:18:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Noisy
Except, matt, there are plenty of acceptable non-chocolate cookies available. The same cannot be said for ciggies, and i think would null your point..
If you mean to imply that non-non-mentholated cigarettes are unacceptable, then I admit that I failed to consider this point and concede the argument.
If you mean to imply that there are no acceptable non-chocolate cigarettes available, then I am utterly bewildered and concede the argument anyway. |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 22:26:30
|
I implore everyone to cease this discussion.
=) |
|
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2003 : 22:39:16
|
that fact that it is so difficult to stop proves that it needs to be discussed haha.
-miked |
|
|
|
Atheist4Catholics
= Cult of Ray =
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 09:19:44
|
I don't care what you call a cookie as long as you don't buy used independent cookies . . .
www.mp3.com/clootie |
|
|
|
Visiting Sasquatch
= Cult of Ray =
USA
451 Posts |
Posted - 01/06/2003 : 12:52:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by Atheist4Catholics
I don't care what you call a cookie as long as you don't buy used independent cookies . . .
www.mp3.com/clootie
I don't buy them! I steal them for free at my local Super Napster-mart. And while we're at it, why buy the whole cookie when all you really want are the chocolate chips?
Support your local bakeries! |
|
|
|
mdisanto
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1140 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 03:51:52
|
becuase cookies with too many chocolate chips arent very good, proving, sort of, that there is a certain ratio requirement of "cookie" that must accompany the chips.
-miked |
|
|
|
Dave Noisy
Minister of Chaos
Canada
4496 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 12:50:07
|
I dunno..i won't complain if i end up with a handful of chocolate chips... ;)
Interesting point tho, and thank you for continuing this subject, i had lost faith in you people. |
|
|
|
bazza
* Dog in the Sand *
Ireland
1439 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 14:44:23
|
Q. how many people with fair hair (need to be PC!) does it take to make chocolate chip cookies?
A. 11. 1 to make the dough and 10 to peel the smarties.
badoom tish!
There may be no 'I' in team, but there's a 'ME' if you look hard enough. |
Edited by - bazza on 01/07/2003 14:48:28 |
|
|
|
johndietzel
= Cult of Ray =
Burkina Faso (Upper Volta)
464 Posts |
Posted - 01/07/2003 : 16:34:27
|
Ed: "smarties" are like M&Ms but in Her Majesty's Kingdom
----------------------
"Music has sounded better and our hair has been smaller ever since."--St. Francis |
|
|
|
bazza
* Dog in the Sand *
Ireland
1439 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 03:31:45
|
we have smarties in ireland too! and we aint part of the UK...
There may be no 'I' in team, but there's a 'ME' if you look hard enough. |
Edited by - bazza on 01/08/2003 03:34:04 |
|
|
|
Atheist4Catholics
= Cult of Ray =
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 09:37:45
|
Be careful or this will turn into a Jimmies versus Sprinkles debate!
www.mp3.com/clootie |
|
|
|
bazza
* Dog in the Sand *
Ireland
1439 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 09:44:56
|
forgive my ignorance tim... but what are jimmies? i assume they are the same as sprinkles (which i grew up calling hundreds and thousands!) although i think i remember marge simpson throwing them at people in phineas Q butterfats ice cream shop. probably! cheers
There may be no 'I' in team, but there's a 'ME' if you look hard enough. |
|
|
|
Omer
= Cult of Ray =
275 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 09:50:00
|
If I mya say so, the problem is with the word 'cookie'. The word cookie has two meaningings in the context. the first is a general word for any kind of cookie, chocolateless chocolate chip or otherwise.
On the other hand, the second sense of the word 'cookie' refers to cookie that is without any remarkable features, that is a cookie that is not a chocolate chip cookie or a peanut butter cookie, but a chipless chocolate chip cookie which is the same as a peanut butter less peanut butter cookie. So you may talk of cookie in this sense to describe a chipless chocolate cookie or a peanut butter-less peanut butter cookie, but not a chocolate chip cookie or a peanut butter cookie, which is only a cookie under the first definition. So, the word cookie refers to both chocolate chip cookies and chipless chocolate chip cookies, or specifically only to chipless chocolate chip cookies but not chocolate chip cookies, which are simply chocolate chip cookies.
all clear now? |
|
|
|
bazza
* Dog in the Sand *
Ireland
1439 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 09:51:11
|
also - isnt cookie the slang for a womans privates as well? sorry to be so lewd!
There may be no 'I' in team, but there's a 'ME' if you look hard enough. |
|
|
|
St. Francis
= Cult of Ray =
Canada
548 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 19:21:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by johndietzel
----------------------
"Music has sounded better and our hair has been smaller ever since."--St. Francis
Hey didn't notice that...cheers...
Brothers be on my jock 'cause the way I hold a piece of steel... |
Edited by - St. Francis on 01/08/2003 19:21:59 |
|
|
|
Atheist4Catholics
= Cult of Ray =
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/08/2003 : 22:04:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by bazza
forgive my ignorance tim... but what are jimmies? i assume they are the same as sprinkles (which i grew up calling hundreds and thousands!) although i think i remember marge simpson throwing them at people in phineas Q butterfats ice cream shop. probably! cheers
People used to argue over whether to call them jimmies or sprinkles, but technically Jimmies are slightly longer sprinkles. Lets say it like this:
Sprinkle -
Jimmy --
Sprinkles can be round, but Jimmies are always oblongish. Marge did actually throw Jimmies in a Phineas Q Butterfats. She probably chose them over sprinkles because they're sharper.
I really like the hundreds and thousands idea though. Colloquialisms are fascinating. You Europeans sure do talk funny!
www.mp3.com/clootie |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
