Welcome to the EGGhead Forum - a great place to visit and packed with tips and EGGspert advice! You can also join the conversation and get more information and amazing kamado recipes by following Big Green Egg to Experience our World of Flavor™ at:
Facebook  |  Twitter  |  Instagram  |  Pinterest  |  Youtube  |  Vimeo
Share your photos by tagging us and using the hashtag #BigGreenEgg.

Want to see how the EGG is made? Click to Watch

Plant-based burgers.

13»

Comments

  • nolaegghead
    nolaegghead Posts: 42,102
    Thanks.  Yes, I want it done right.  I bought this suit second hand for a large discount, new it costs around $1200.  My buddy's family used to be leather workers when he grew up in Maine, I might try to find an old machine and see if he'll do it.  He tells me all the good leather machines are antiques, don't know if I believe that but I'll discuss with him.
    ______________________________________________
    I love lamp..
  • HeavyG
    HeavyG Posts: 10,323
    DWFII said:
    What's the point? Isn't it a little hypocritical to be a vegan/vegetarian and eat food that emulates meat? If you want the taste and mouthfeel of meat...well that's what meat is.

    It's like feminists wanting to act and function like men. Or people who want fake leather shoes that look and function just like real leather just to pat themselves on the back that they're not using leather. But the closer the fake stuff gets to looking and feeling like leather the more it increases the demand for real leather.


    "It's like feminists wanting to act and function like men."

    I'm not sure what you mean by that. By voting? Owning property? By becoming pilots, scientists, engineers?


    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” ― Philip K. Diçk




  • DWFII
    DWFII Posts: 317
    edited June 2018
    Image result for women wearing mens clothes

    Think about it... =)

    Bespoke boot and shoemaker--45+ years
    Instagram
  • YukonRon
    YukonRon Posts: 16,984
    I think fat is America's other white meat. If they made a red meat soda, I would drink it while eating a bacon sandwich, while eating fried potatoes cooked in bacon grease, on a whole wheat bun.
    "Knowledge is Good" - Emil Faber

    XL and MM
    Louisville, Kentucky
  • bgebrent
    bgebrent Posts: 19,636
    YukonRon said:
    I think fat is America's other white meat. If they made a red meat soda, I would drink it while eating a bacon sandwich, while eating fried potatoes cooked in bacon grease, on a whole wheat bun.
    The whole wheat makes it healthy.
    Sandy Springs & Dawsonville Ga
  • Zippylip
    Zippylip Posts: 4,768
    DWFII said:
    What's the point? Isn't it a little hypocritical to be a vegan/vegetarian and eat food that emulates meat? If you want the taste and mouthfeel of meat...well that's what meat is.

    It's like feminists wanting to act and function like men. Or people who want fake leather shoes that look and function just like real leather just to pat themselves on the back that they're not using leather. But the closer the fake stuff gets to looking and feeling like leather the more it increases the demand for real leather.

    What’s hypocritical is any American thinking it’s his right to tell any other American what or how he should eat or for that matter what he should wear, who he should sleep with or marry, whether or not he should have a gun, terminate a pregnancy or any other personal freedom we oughta be leaving to the individual him/herself rather than a group of miscreants in (name the Capitol of your choice)

    To each his own, so simple yet so elusive to so many

    happy in the hut
    West Chester Pennsylvania
  • fishlessman
    fishlessman Posts: 32,665
    Thanks.  Yes, I want it done right.  I bought this suit second hand for a large discount, new it costs around $1200.  My buddy's family used to be leather workers when he grew up in Maine, I might try to find an old machine and see if he'll do it.  He tells me all the good leather machines are antiques, don't know if I believe that but I'll discuss with him.
    i used to fix the old leather stitching machines, mostly big castiron parts. all those guys around here are long gone and so are those 100 year old machines.  there should still be shops in texas that could do this for you. even the cobbler shops are disappearing around here
    fukahwee maine

    you can lead a fish to water but you can not make him drink it
  • DWFII
    DWFII Posts: 317
    edited June 2018
    There's no one here  (that I know of) telling any one that. Those kind of characterizations are based on hysteria and sophistry.

    What I was doing...humorously...is pointing out how the high-minded "morality" of some people only applies when it's something they want to do or their friends want to do. And the contradictions are dismissed as if they were unimportant. 

    It's like the rule of law...you can't apply it selectively--when you do there is no (zero) justice and laws exist only to shield favoured groups.

    At which point the whole concept of democracy...fairness, trust, etc....falls apart. And the question then becomes "Can the nation itself survive...much less the ideals that people embrace (often in contradiction to what they pay lip service to and say they believe)...? "

    Morality, tolerance, etc., cannot be applied selectively either.

    Each to his own only works when we all live in caves and there is no such notion as "the commonweal."
    Bespoke boot and shoemaker--45+ years
    Instagram
  • Zippylip
    Zippylip Posts: 4,768

    DWFII said:

    Each to his own only works when we all live in caves and there is no such notion as "the commonweal."

    The battle cry of every man that holds dear his own block of approved personal freedoms while at the same time justifying the destruction of those he sees no use for.

    happy in the hut
    West Chester Pennsylvania
  • DWFII
    DWFII Posts: 317
    edited June 2018
    What does that even mean? On the face of it, it doesn't even relate to the comment you're supposedly replying to.

    Every oh-so-predictable issue you cited in your original post is not only a tired and shallow rallying cry for liberals everywhere, each is manifestly solipsistic--predicated on the notion that the self owes no allegiance or respect or even cooperation with any 'other'...much less group of others. That there is no authority greater than the self. No morality except the singular morality of the individual. No right or wrong, no good or bad, no common ground possible.

    The upshot is that, in this world view, the individual is free of any constraint, above the law and and outside of society.  Except when they want food stamps.

    That's the state of affairs that our ancient ancestors  (cavemen) supposedly evolved away from--ostensibly to create a society that would allow them to care for each other, defend each other and provide for the commonweal. But to do that, of course you have to share a common set of values and a respect for the agreements made amongst yourselves...ie. in this case Constitutional government.

    You get it, yet?

    Personally, I take the view...on almost every issue you cited...that "it's evolution in action."  Including the inevitable dissolution into anarchy, and all the attendant misery and loss of life that entails.  

    Bespoke boot and shoemaker--45+ years
    Instagram
  • Zippylip
    Zippylip Posts: 4,768
    DWFII said:
    You get it, yet?

    Personally, I take the view...on almost every issue you cited...that "it's evolution in action."  Including the inevitable dissolution into anarchy, and all the attendant misery and loss of life that entails.  

    Um, no, I have no idea what you’re rambling about but it seems apparent you believe libertarian philosophy is synonymous with anarchy, a sadly common mistake/misconception

    happy in the hut
    West Chester Pennsylvania
  • DWFII
    DWFII Posts: 317
    edited June 2018
    No,  but I suspect from everything I've seen in 7 decades of living...from history, from study...that a cavalier disdain for the rule of law and even authority (esp. a higher authority) is a sure fire recipe for anarchy. In fact, it is very nearly the definition of anarchy (Bing it).

    [Parenthetically, it seems clear to me, that all too many who style themselves as "libertarian" are really just anti-authority...any authority (which is again, nearly the definition of anarchy)...and looking for a convenient moniker]

    Beyond that, a contempt for the commonweal, and the commonly held assumptions, nevermind mores, which inform it, is a recipe for anarchy.

    I would further suggest that living in an echo chamber of self-righteous see-no-evil, hear-no-evil "safe spaces" which brook no real diversity or tolerance is a symptom of solipsism, intractability, divisiveness and, by definition, anarchy.

    And prime ingredients of anarchy...not to mention misery for everyone in the vicinity.

    The thing that no one in that camp is honest enough to admit, is that disorder, lawlessness (anarchy) and, by extension misery,  is implicitly but precisely the goal. And that "getting it" is the last thing wanted.

    Bespoke boot and shoemaker--45+ years
    Instagram
  • DMW
    DMW Posts: 13,832
    DWFII said:
    No,  but I suspect from everything I've seen in 7 decades of living...from history, from study...that a cavalier disdain for the rule of law and even authority (esp. a higher authority) is a sure fire recipe for anarchy. In fact, it is very nearly the definition of anarchy (Bing it).

    Beyond that, a contempt for the commonweal, and the commonly held assumptions, nevermind mores, which inform it, is a recipe for anarchy.

    I would further suggest that living in an echo chamber of self-righteous see-no-evil, hear-no-evil "safe spaces" which brook no real diversity or tolerance is a symptom of solipsism, intractability, divisiveness and, by definition, anarchy.

    And prime ingredients of anarchy...not to mention misery for everyone in the vicinity.

    The thing that no one in that camp is honest enough to admit, is that disorder, lawlessness (anarchy) and, by extension misery,  is implicitly but precisely the goal. And that "getting it" is the last thing wanted.

    Congrats on being old...
    They/Them
    Morgantown, PA

    XL BGE - S BGE - KJ Jr - HB Legacy - BS Pizza Oven - 30" Firepit - King Kooker Fryer -  PR72T - WSJ - BS 17" Griddle - XXL BGE  - BS SS36" Griddle - 2 Burner Gasser - Pellet Smoker
  • DWFII
    DWFII Posts: 317
    edited June 2018
    Thanks. But don't forget...old means I survived.

    And that my "callow" youth,  naivete, and perhaps even "wilful ignorance,"  are, mostly, in the past.

    =)



    Bespoke boot and shoemaker--45+ years
    Instagram
  • gdenby
    gdenby Posts: 6,239
    Well, this thread has wandered off into an intersting corner.

    Just a point on linguistics. Anarchy is not lawlessness. It is a political mode that does not have an "archon," a leader, ruler, captain, 1st citixen, etc.

    Anarchy formulates social order by social consensus, and co-operation. Early examples in English history appear during the 1st English Civil War. 2 faction were Levellers and Diggers, with the Levellers espousing private ownership in most cases, while the Diggers were for common property. These were the beginnings of breaks with the feudal order, and rule by hereditary owners.

    During the periods where it was presumed rulers were there by divine right, the will of heaven, wars and struggles for succession were often considered anarchy. Sort of like Game of Thrones, w. many factions vying for authority, and causing wide spread war, famine, etc.
  • Zippylip
    Zippylip Posts: 4,768
    DWFII said:
    The thing that no one in that camp is honest enough to admit, is that disorder, lawlessness (anarchy) and, by extension misery,  is implicitly but precisely the goal. And that "getting it" is the last thing wanted.

    Thank you for putting an even finer point on your patent misconception and for letting me know of my own implicit goal to seek anarchy & misery, I was unaware.  7 decades, well, the longer the trip the more opportunity to go off the rails, I think you’ve seized that opportunity - good for you.

    happy in the hut
    West Chester Pennsylvania
  • DWFII
    DWFII Posts: 317
    gdenby said:
    Well, this thread has wandered off into an intersting corner.

    Just a point on linguistics. Anarchy is not lawlessness. It is a political mode that does not have an "archon," a leader, ruler, captain, 1st citixen, etc.

    Anarchy formulates social order by social consensus, and co-operation. Early examples in English history appear during the 1st English Civil War. 2 faction were Levellers and Diggers, with the Levellers espousing private ownership in most cases, while the Diggers were for common property. These were the beginnings of breaks with the feudal order, and rule by hereditary owners.

    During the periods where it was presumed rulers were there by divine right, the will of heaven, wars and struggles for succession were often considered anarchy. Sort of like Game of Thrones, w. many factions vying for authority, and causing wide spread war, famine, etc.
    You appear to be an historian of some sort...and I'm sure that you know more about this than I do.

    But, almost universally, dictionaries (including several legal dictionaries that I ran across) define anarchy as:
    <div><br></div><div><span>A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.</span></div>
     or something very similar.

    All of which supports the common usage in society at large.
    Bespoke boot and shoemaker--45+ years
    Instagram
  • HeavyG
    HeavyG Posts: 10,323
    DWFII said:
    gdenby said:
    Well, this thread has wandered off into an intersting corner.

    Just a point on linguistics. Anarchy is not lawlessness. It is a political mode that does not have an "archon," a leader, ruler, captain, 1st citixen, etc.

    Anarchy formulates social order by social consensus, and co-operation. Early examples in English history appear during the 1st English Civil War. 2 faction were Levellers and Diggers, with the Levellers espousing private ownership in most cases, while the Diggers were for common property. These were the beginnings of breaks with the feudal order, and rule by hereditary owners.

    During the periods where it was presumed rulers were there by divine right, the will of heaven, wars and struggles for succession were often considered anarchy. Sort of like Game of Thrones, w. many factions vying for authority, and causing wide spread war, famine, etc.
    You appear to be an historian of some sort...and I'm sure that you know more about this than I do.

    But, almost universally, dictionaries (including several legal dictionaries that I ran across) define anarchy as:
    <div><br></div><div><span>A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.</span></div>
     or something very similar.

    All of which supports the common usage in society at large.
    Since you claim to be a wise old guy I'm sure you are aware that many words have multiple meanings. Perhaps if you read more than the first definition listed...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” ― Philip K. Diçk




  • DWFII
    DWFII Posts: 317
    edited June 2018
    Thanks. I don't know whether I'm wise or not--you're putting words in my mouth. On the other hand, I suspect there are reasons why I have survived this lone and am in extremely good health.

    In any case,  the first definition is generally considered the best and the most commonly accepted. That's why it's first--you see how that works?

    The danger with making distinctions / objections such as you have, is that it runs the risk of, and encourages people to, make up their own definition for words. Or choose the ones that best fit their own narrative / agenda.

    And that not only fosters the breakdown of communication (in many cases actually creating disaffection, divisiveness, disorder, lack of respect for authority and laws, etc,) it provides ready justification for anti-social and fractious behaviour.

    Of course, it's also conveniently exculpatory. No surprise.
    Bespoke boot and shoemaker--45+ years
    Instagram
  • gdenby
    gdenby Posts: 6,239
    DWFII said:
    You appear to be an historian of some sort...and I'm sure that you know more about this than I do.

    But, almost universally, dictionaries (including several legal dictionaries that I ran across) define anarchy as:
    <div><br></div><div>A state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.</div>
     or something very similar.

    All of which supports the common usage in society at large.
    I read lots of history, but have spent most of my life reading dictionaries.  My earliest recollection of reading was working thru a pocket dictionary at the age of 5. Considered reading Sam'l Johnson's "Dictionary of the English Language" being almost as much fun as reading a hard boiled detective pulp. I spend lots of time reading etymology.

    While I recognize there are common usages of words that alter surprisingly over time (really good changed to "bad boy", extraordinary to "sik."), I don't think those usages are appropriate to discussions of political philosophy.

    The common/standard usage for words is sort of like trying to make fine cuts w. a dull knife.

    And, having read a small amount of actual anarchist lit, I find that referring to the earliest root meanings, a governing system not based of the dictates of a ruler, and enforced by subordinates, but on a gathered council attempting to formulate procedures in a fluid situation to be appropriate.

  • HeavyG
    HeavyG Posts: 10,323
    DWFII said:

    ...

    The danger with making distinctions / objections such as you have, is that it runs the risk of, and encourages people to, make up their own definition for words. Or choose the ones that best fit their own narrative / agenda...
    Yeah... words having multiple meanings that properly allows people to use the word in more than one narrow sense just leads to... chaos. Or anarchy, it's hard to tell the difference sometimes. :)


    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” ― Philip K. Diçk




  • DWFII
    DWFII Posts: 317
    edited June 2018
    Well there's several issues here...

    First, I am always right if I use the word according to its first and most recognized meaning. Some might object to the clear and widely-accepted definition but I  am communicating clearly. And that is, fundamentally, crucially, the whole point. 

    Those who use the word according to a secondary, subordinate, or less accepted meaning are always mis-communicating. Unless they take the time to apprise others that they are choosing the definition that best suits their agenda, they are fundamentally misleading people. 

    Second, and FWIW, I have never seen, heard or read anything in the historical record that indicates that "anarchy"...in either sense...was ever all that it is currently cracked up to be. Or, for that matter, ultimately anything other than "a state of disorder". I don't know of a single successful utopia based on anarchy. On the face of it, it seems mightily like la-la land pipe dreams. 

    Finally, no matter how much we might wish to weasel-word meanings, it's pretty hard to argue against an au currant legal definition. 

    IMO...
    Bespoke boot and shoemaker--45+ years
    Instagram
  • gdenby
    gdenby Posts: 6,239
    Ya' might really want to read up some more. Start here.

    "All the same, we maintain our contention: bread must be found for the people of the Revolution, and the question of bread must take precedence of all other questions."

    Damn Utopian!
  • kweitz
    kweitz Posts: 305
    Agree with @GoooDawgs above. I’ve had it twice at a local chain restaurant and the are delicious. Don’t really like the sodium content though!

    Charles Town, West-by-God Virginia

    Sazco large Casa-Q

    Large BGE