For some reason I want to argue two points that are completely unrelated, and really have no bearing on the world. If anyone wants to play point v. counterpoint here, I encourage it...
First: The bowl is superior to the plate.
I have no idea why we eat off of plates as much as we do. Bowls have walls, so less food is lost to the table, ground, and lap. Bowls can hold liquids, plates cannot. Bowls allow you to stack your food vertically, plates do not (safely).
Second: It's better to take out old library books than buy new ones.
Old library books are full of cool surprises. Sometimes you find love notes that were inadvertently left inside their pages, other times you find random lists of chores-- either way it is interesting. More importantly, old books often contain notes and highlights that tell you exactly where the important passages are. It saves you the effort of having to closely read a text if someone has already highlighted the key passages. Finally, they look more regal. Old hardcover books make you look like a distinguished gentleman, even if you only wear cargo shorts and flip flops. Also, according to a friend, they smell deliciously of sweat. I do not back this particular charge, but nonetheless, he is right about them having their own character and personalities in a way that new books do not.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I entirely agree with your disdain for flatware. Ever since my parents distinguished me from the peasant class by honing my dinner manners have I raged against the insufficient barrier exhibited by plates. Why can't I use my knife as my forks opposable appendage in stuffing my face? because poor people do (thanks centuries of etiquettian arms race.)
Bowls are far better than plates, particularly since bowl-foods are vastly superior to plate-foods.
Well said!
Post a Comment