Some background first.
In January 1986 I had a new job in London. I worked for an agency who contracted me out to another comapny. While I looked for accomodation I was temporarilly living in the flat attached to the agency's West End office.
On 28th January I returned home from work, turned on the television and heard for the first time about the Challenger Space Shuttle.

I don't pretend to be a great poet but I do write poetry and some of it I'm relatively proud of. This poem was one I wrote that evening. I've just dug out my old books so that I can post it again as a tribute to the crew of the Colombia much as it was then intended as a tribute to the crew of the Challenger. I'd like to write a better poem but I hope this one will do.

Ladder On The Sky

Some are born to falter
Some are born to fly
Some are born to climb the ladder
Hanging on the sky

Some are born to witness
The legends of the bold
Some are born to seek and find
The rainbow's pot of gold

Some are born to pleasure
Some are born to pain
Some, who stumble, struggle on
And rise to fly again

Some are born to follow
Some are born to lead
Some are born to admiration
Of those who do the deed

Some are born for long long life
Some, still young, must die
Some are born to climb the ladder
Hanging on the sky.


I really hope I never need to dig this poem out again

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

Thank you, Bob.

A reminder, if one were needed, of the power and importance of words. Sometimes nothing else will do so well.

Richard English

Four white Americans, one black American, an Indian and an Israeli, returning from a space station built in part by Russians, some of whom perished in learning how to break the bonds of Earth. And we still fight among ourselves? When will it occur that every war is internecine?

While we mourn for the seven astronauts who died in the Challenger explosion, let's also mourn for the thousands who are killed in vehicle accidents, for those who are murdered, for the children who go to bed hungry every night, for those who die from preventable diseases simply because they can't afford medicine, for those who are maimed or killed in war.

If we renounce hate, greed, hypocrisy and violence, maybe we won't have to mourn so much.

Clickhere.

Tinman

From Tinman's referenced site: Matthew Singer, 19, and Dane Bruce, 31, died in Oregon Saturday
when their car crashed through a barrier and plunged into Puget Sound.
=================================
That was one heck of a crash. Puget Sound is in Washington.

That gaffe notwithstanding, thanks for the site, Tinman.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tinman:
While we mourn for the seven astronauts who died in the Challenger explosion, let's also mourn for the thousands who are killed in vehicle accidents, for those who are murdered, for the children who go to bed hungry every night, for those who die from preventable diseases simply because they can't afford medicine, for those who are maimed or killed in war.

If we renounce hate, greed, hypocrisy and violence, maybe we won't have to mourn so much.

Clickhttp://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1683.shtml.

Tinman

---

We should indeed mourn all death, especially the "pointless" deaths from poverty, treatable disease and most especially war.
With that in mind, and with no apology for my politics, I am already mourning the almost inevitable deaths in Iraq and the Bush-Blair roadshow hasn't even started rolling yet.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

Thanks, Bob, for the inspiring poem. You don't give yourself enough credit--it was excellent.

GREAT site, Tinman!

I ventured out into several side streets and other literary alleyways from the main drag you posted and, boy, that guy can write!

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobHale:
We should indeed mourn all death, especially the "pointless" deaths from poverty, treatable disease and most especially war.
With that in mind, and with no apology for my politics, I am already mourning the almost inevitable deaths in Iraq and the Bush-Blair roadshow hasn't even started rolling yet.

---

Thanks, Bob. When I wrote that I was specifically thinking of all the innocent Iraqis, especially the children, who have slowly starved to death due to USA sanctions. I didn't say it because I didn't want to turn this into a political forum. But I will now.

I'm glad you liked the site, C. J. You can subscribe to a daily newsletter from Capitol Hill Blues, but you probably already know that.

Tinman

The article posted by tinman was interesting and there is a very similar one in this week's Guardian G2 supplement. (similar in sentiment that is rather than style)

However I couldn't help reflecting that there is a specious aspect to both. The deaths of the Columbia astronauts were highly visible deaths, they occurred on television and the whole world knew about them almost as soon as they happened. This gives them an immediacy that none of the examples quoted in either article have.

The front page of the Guardian supplement carries a picture of a US flag at half mast with the caption

quote:

---

At the weekend seven people died when the space shuttle Columbia crashed. Two British Sunday newspapers altered their mastheads to reflect the mood of international mourning. But was this country really grieving? And if so, why weren't we grieving for seven Canadian schoolchildren killed during a school trip the same weekend.

---

It is a valid point but it has a valid answer. We cannot, except in the most abstract and theoretical way mourn a death that we do not know about.
I said in my previous post that we should mourn all death. So we should but that's like saying we should condemn all sin and praise all virtue - it's an abstract philosophical concept that only connects with our real everyday lives when the tragedy is somehow personalised.
We have all lost people dear to us and for most people the depth of mourning felt for a single family member is greater than depth of mourning that could possibly be felt for a thousand, a hundred thousand or a million dead - none of whom they know - far away.

Certainly I can mourn for the astronauts, and now that I am aware of them for the dead children on the school trip - but it just doesn't have the same emotional impact for most people that a personal loss has.

And of course when deaths occur which we don't get to hear about then we cannot in any real sense mourn them at all.

If we have to seek a positive from the Columbia tragedy then maybe these articles which have brought other examples to our attention can that positive. They show that there are people who care about the whole picture, about the world rather than about their bit of it.

Don't ask me to grieve specifically though for a death that I am unaware of. It's logically impossible.


Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

I do not mourn or grieve for the astronauts, nor for the seven children who died in Canada.

I did not mourn or grieve for the thousands who perished in the 9/11 attacks.

How can you grieve for someone you do not know?

How can you mourn their passing when they had nothing to do with you or your life?

Grieve when a member of your family dies.

Mourn the loss of a close friend.

People die every second of every day, most by natural causes, some by tragic event.

Feel shock, outrage, disgust and more.

Feel sympathy and pity for those families and friends left behind for it is they who grieve and mourn.

I have to concur with this present thread of thought. Having lost my husband and my grandmother in the same weekend (thousands of miles apart, pure coincidense) I have felt the abject rage and sadness that accompanies the death of loved ones. When 9/11 happened I was stunned, but the feelings weren't even comparable.
The same with the shuttle tragedy. I just don't feel it personally.

Sorry, I just cannot agree with any of you, except for Bob. As a nurse, I mourn the loss of every single patient, and I never know any of them. I have seen nurses and doctors cry at the loss of their patients. I was very affected by the losses that occurred on 9/11--and the losses of the enemy, as well as our forces, in the war that followed. I am surprised at these reactions and only hope that I am misinterpreting them--which is highly plausible!

And, I would hate to turn this into a political forum. I love posting with people here and would hate to think of an impending flamewar on this site.

Kalleh, as a nurse you have personal contact with your patients, so of course you mourn them. Your life touched theirs and vice versa. The same with all doctors and nurses. Because you have the connection. Think about how you felt when one of your patients died. Now compare that to hearing about the shuttle crash. It is not the same feeling. Or maybe I am just a hardened old woman dulled by the violence on television.

Well, I am beginning to sound like a "goody two-shoes"--I know it. However, yes, I mourned the deaths of those on the shuttle. I still remember where I was when the Challenger exploded. At that time, not only was I teary-eyed, but I was in an ICU with dying patients, all of whom seemed deeply affected. The same is true during the 9/11 attack. I was on an oncology unit with my students, and every nurse, doctor, and patient (including those who were terminally ill and dying themselves) were deeply affected. I remember, the surgeons, usually hardened and unemotional, were listening to the 9/11 accounts while performing surgery.

People are all different, I guess, and therefore reactions are different.

quote:

---

grieve 1. to feel or cause to feel great sorrow or distress esp. at the death of someone

---

quote:

---

mourn 1. 2 feel or express sadness for the death or loss (of someone or something)

---

I know that reducing it to definitions is in a way trivialising the discussion but I really don't see that either of these words precludes someone for grieving (or mourning) over someone that they don't know personally.
I had two points originally - neither of which was that we can't grieve for someone we don't know. I wouldn't say that because I don't believe it.
First I was saying that personal grief must inevitably be felt more deeply than the more distant and more abstract sorrow at someone else's loss. That doesn't mean we can't grieve for or mourn that loss.

The second point, which was the more important one in that it negated part of the argument from the newspaper articles, was that we can't grieve at all for a death if we are unaware that it has happened. That's why it's specious of the writer in tinman's article to suggest that I should grieve for the teenagers in the car accident. I didn't know it had happened so I couldn't logically be concerned by it.

It is perfectly possible, in my opinion of course, to grieve for people you don't know or even for abstract ideals. We can mourn "the loss of innocence" or grieve for "the suffering of the poor."
These are perfectly valid emotional responses.

Such things are harder to pin down and so the feelings they inkoke are more diffuse but that doesn't mean that they are any less genuine.

It can of course become a displacement activity. The massive public outpouring of sympathy in the UK on the death of Princess Di couldn't be put down to genuine grief. People simply do not feel that depth of emotion for unrelated celebreties. What I believe we saw there was partly mass hysteria and partly people with deep and genuie sorrows of their own projecting it onto a public figure as a way of dealing with unresolved issues in their own lives.

Similarly the public demonstrations at Soham - for a couple who were arrested but not yet on trial (though in the eyes of the newspapers and hence the public were already guilty) was not focussed and directed anger but displaced anger from areas where they felt themselves to be impotent to act.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

[This message was edited by BobHale on Wed Feb 5th, 2003 at 11:38.]

[This message was edited by BobHale on Wed Feb 5th, 2003 at 11:39.]

quote:

---

I know that reducing it to definitions is in a way trivialising the discussion but I really don't see that either of these words precludes someone for grieving (or mourning) over someone that they don't know personally.

---

It isn't trivializing the discussion at all, Bob. After all, this is a forum about language, and you make some good points.

This board preserves older posts, which in many ways is an advantage. On some boards, posts as they age scroll off the screen, never to be seen again. On this board though, one can reread and enjoy them again months later, or even revive them for renewed discussione

But preserving old posts is a two-edged sword. for if a post should happen to rankle or offend, it will not vanish into the cyber-mists. It will remain and continue to provoke and fester, perhaps even leading to a flame war.

Thus the very nature of our software makes it particularly important that each user take care not to ignite, and not to fuel, too heated a discussion. And we all know that some subjects, especially politics and religion, are notorious for raising heated passion.

Maybe I'm over-nervous, but would any who wish to continue a political discussion please shift it from this public board to a private topic? Thank you.

May I suggest that any who wish to continue a political discussion shift it from this public board to a private topic? Thank you.[/QUOTE]

I can appreciate that discussions on politics and religion can become heated. Neither of these subjects are being discussed on this thread.
Surely we are discussing emotions, reaction to tragedy, and usage and interpretation of the words grief and mourn.

Entirely agree. This is not your average website and, peopled with the regular posters it enjoys, I'm totally confident we can share a public discussion of serious events (even those not 100% directly related to language) without risking megaflameoutisity. (Hey, good one!)

Allow me to stir the pot...

The car accident teenagers vs. the shuttle crew disaster question is one I will chime in on with a view that I swear is both totally heartfelt and, I'm sure, bound to be in the minority.

"All men are created equal" and all that, right? Well, yes, but then again we all don't make as much of ourselves during the course of our lives. Every life is precious (and I'm referring to post-sucessfull-birth lives here - PULEEEZE let's not go down that road!) but let's be honest - Aren't some individual lives arguably worth more than others? We mourn the seven shuttle crew members but seven middle-age, high school dropout, minimum wage, degenerate winos? Not so much.

And I'll even take it a step further. I believe that some things could be arguably be worth more than some lives. Adolph Hitler's life over the Mona Lisa? No way. Let's take it to a ridiculous extreme. I've got a broken leg and I'm in a burning building with the very last 6-pack of British beer ("Bulldog T.E.A. Ale" or whatever) in the world and R.E., brave soul that he is, has enough time to rescue one of us. Yes, I fully realize that chances are slim beyone measure that this would happen but just suppose. Without asking anyone for an answer here, I would have absolutely no heartburn at all if R.E., at a minimum, paused a moment to weigh his options. OR, same burning building but the broken leg is R.E.'s and at risk is not beer but the last remaining copy of the OED in the world. I can easily picture our beloved R.E. (in the best British tradition as portrayed by countless movies from the 40's) bravely insisting that I save our precious English language.

Some people are mourned more than others, some not at all. Maybe a goal of life should be to live it in such a way as to produce a maximum of mourning when your big day comes. Any thoughts?


(For the record, I'd grab R.E. under one arm and the OED [and the beer] under the other and at least give it a try that way. I know that the original supposition prohibits this but, as I've said elsewhere, RulesRulesRulesRulesRules!!!)

If wordcrafter wishes us to do so then I will refrain from political discussion in open forums. I think it's a shame for reasons that both FatStan aand CJ have already adequately described.
However this is not my home and when I'm in someone else's game I play by their rules.
No more political comment then after this one.
IMO this diminishes the board.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

[This message was edited by BobHale on Wed Feb 5th, 2003 at 16:15.]

quote:

---

However this is not my home and when I'm in someone else's game I play by their rules.

---

Actually, when you put it that way, I agree.

Is there another board, similar in structure to this one, to which we could transfer non-language discussions of this sort?

quote:

---

Is there another board, similar in structure to this one, to which we could transfer [this discussion]?

---

Easy enough. Just use a private thread on this board, for those who want to participate. For that private thread, I take Samuel Goldwyn's position.

Having been away for a few days dealing with the deaths of three seprate friends of my own, I found this a very difficult thread to read.

This is the kind of thing that either a private topic would be good for, or the message center of our community. Personally, please don't include me in the discussions though. Thank you.

One problem with a private thread is that only members that the topic starter invites are even aware of its existence, As far as I can tell there is no way to start a private thread and invite everybody. As I'm interested in everybody's views this would be what I wanted to do.

I also don't know (maybe someone else can tell me) if it's possible to add new invitees after the thread has started to allow new board members to participate.
We could I suppose have two threads - one private one and one just informing everyone that the private one exists and asking if they want to join in (assuming that they can be invited later) but can anyone truthfuly say that they wouldn't want to take a look - if only out of curiosity - at evry topic thus posted ?

This particular thread also demonstrates that it's possible for a relatively innocuous opening to spin off into unexpected areas. I can say with some certainty that the opening was intended to be innocuous - after all it was my poem.

Morgan, I am genuinely sorry for your loss.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by BobHale:
If wordcrafter wishes us to do so then I will refrain from political discussion in open forums. I think it's a shame for reasons that both FatStan aand CJ have already adequately described.
However this is not my home and when I'm in someone else's game I play by their rules.
No more political comment then after this one.
IMO this diminishes the board.

---

I believe the above posting may inadvertantly have given offence.
The comment that I believe this diminishes the board was in no way intended as a personal comment about wordcrafter or about the suggested policy of avoiding political discussion.

It was intended simply as a statement about my own belief that anything that even looks like censorship is wrong.
I accept that even if this can be construed as censorship it is about as mild a form as is possible.

If I have inadvertantly given offence to wordcrafter or any other board member with this poorly phrased comment then I apologise without reservation.
It wasn't intended and it is regretted.

Purgamentum init, exit purgamentum

Read all about my travels around the world here.

They say you can't have it both ways but, in this case, I hope we can. I also will await further word regarding how we might private-topic (adjective + noun = new verb; see appropriate thread elsewhere) non-language related discussions so as to keep this board relatively "pure." It's not easy maintaining a strict adherence to a thread's original proposition or even to the English language itself sometimes as is evidenced by the following conversation I recently had with R.E.:


Me: It certainly is a nice day today, isn't it?

R.E.: Yes, it is. It reminds me of the day I first tried "Bulldog Drummond Lager," a mildly presumptuous brew reminiscent of the tang of "Hog's Butt 3972 Ale" but with the flavorful hops of an early British stout but with the bouquet of a Guiness draft and, in any event, vastly superior to a Budwe..."

Me: OH, PLEASE PUT A SOCK IN IT, ALREADY!!!


An open forum, on beer or any other subjects, might be just the ticket.

And lastly, but certainly not leastly, you may have noticed that I occasionally enjoy giving R.E.'s beard a tug. If it is not apparent from previous posts, allow me to state for the record that I have the utmost respect for our esteemed British grand old man of letters and, despite what our infrequent bickering might imply to the contrary, consider R.E. to be a dear and valued friend. I would be honored to sit down to a couple of good British beers (or a shared doobie - Woo-Hoo!!) with him one day and, for that matter, the rest of you as well.

Like you, B.H., I also have a certain sensitivity regarding how my postings run the risk of being misread. It never hurts to clear the air even if, as it turns out, the effort is not required.


P.S.
One more post and R.E. hits 500! How much do you want to bet it's about beer?

>>> How much do you want to bet it's about beer?

Hope so. I'm passing the celebratory pints around.

Just in case there's any doubt about the truth of the matter, there is no such thing as "Bulldog Drummond Lager".

Bulldog Drummond is a British fictional character who first saw the light of day just after the First World War. He and his friends, while undertaking deeds of derring-do and preserving civilisation from the evil antics of Carl Peterson, spent much of their time drinking beer.

It would, of course, have been Real Ale, since the chemical monstrosities of AB had not at that time been invented. Indeed, neither was lager known in the UK.

Beer was Mild beer; if you wanted any other kind you asked for it specifically. There were hundreds of breweries and Britain ruled the largest Empire the world has ever known. Happy days!

Richard English

I had not read this thread for a few days, and, upon returning to it, see that things have gotten, um, "spicy!" I know that some of us, myself included, are sensitive to flame wars because we've had our share of immolation on other forums, and are loathe to have to wear fireproof suits here. Thus our particular nomism and fear of controversy.

I've begun to question the definition of the term, "tragedy." The word has been used here, but what, to you as individuals, does this word connote? Can tragedy exist if the one about whom we apply the term does not influence the lives of others? Do Donne's words, "No man is an island" resonate here? Does "...the bell toll for thee" if a vagrant dies, if a child dies, if a dictator dies, if an artist dies, if a poet dies, if a statesman dies, if a scientist dies, all the same?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard English:
Just in case there's any doubt about the truth of the matter, there is no such thing as "Bulldog Drummond Lager".

---

Sheesh! In an effort to assuage any hurt feelings on R.E.'s part caused by my recent posts (addressing affronts, I might add, that I really didn't think he felt and that I certainly didn't intend) I bare my soul and get all soppy in ways not common to the average 21st century guy and how does he react? He focuses in on the most trivial, unimportant aspect of the post.

No, for the record, there is no "Bulldog Drummond Beer." I made it up. I also made up "Hog's Butt 3972 Ale" which he didn't comment on so maybe there is such a thing. There are, after all, over 5,000 beers in the U.K. so maybe I got lucky and named one of them.

Maybe it's just me or maybe it's just an American thing but I really don't think we need to worry overly much about "flaming" on this board, particularly any accidental instance of this happening. Isn't a primary aspect of this negative activity the hostile intent behind the flames? Sure, R.E. may occasionally make me grit my teeth a bit and I'm sure I may infrequently rub him the wrong way as well, but never do we actively set out to piss each other off just for the sake of meanness.

If, in the future, anyone gets the impression that any Wordcrafter (particularly me) is approaching flamehood, I think the best course would be to bring up the point either on the board or in a private message. I know that I am always open to feedback and I get the impression that I am certainly not alone in this feeling.

I can't help but believe this is just another example of a problem that wouldn't exist if we were all face to face sitting together enjoying a few Hog's Butts.

quote:

---

we've had our share of immolation on other forums, and are loathe to have to wear fireproof suits here. Thus our particular nomism and fear of controversy

---

Asa, one has to love your use of words! Yes, I had an unfortunate experience on another board, as well, and am a bit skittish because of that. However, as I see what a wonderful bunch we have, I am getting more comfortable.

Asa, one has to love your use of words! Yes, I had an unfortunate experience on
another board, as well, and am a bit skittish because of that. However, as I see
what a wonderful bunch we have, I am getting more comfortable.
======================================
Awwww, shucks..... BLUSH!

As regards flaming here, I really feel that we've aquired a "critical mass" of members, so that we CAN have some genuine controversy, even sometimes heated exchanges, but, as has just been stated above, were we face-to-face, we'd all be in good, sanguine humour.

quote:

---

...but, as has just been stated above, were we face-to-face, we'd all be in good, sanguine humour.

---

Oh, to be face-to-face with our Hog's Butt Beer! If anyone comes anywhere near Buffalo, let me know and we can get together. Of course, I'll be drinking Diet Coke.

Of course, I'll be drinking Diet
Coke.
-------------------------------
And, just to annoy the Brits, I'll be drinking that light, prissy, Chinese Tsing Tao.

It sometimes comes as a surprise to its citizens that the USA is not universally loved by other countries. "...After all", they cry "we give them so much".

Including Coca Cola, MacDonalds and Bud lite!

Richard English

R.E., if they didn't love those products ("incorrect" as their tastes may be from your point of view) they wouldn't be consuming them in such massive quantities.

I mean, really! How much Hog's Butt is exported from the U.K.??

All products and services are acquired because of a balance between four factors: Their price, promomotion, availability/distribution and the product itself.

Coca-cola is successful becaue of its very good promotion and distribution. The fact that the product is essentially expensive sweet coloured water pales into insignificance in this instance.

And no Hog's Butt is sold in the USA because it doesn't exist.

Richard English

quote:

---

Coca-cola is successful becaue of its very good promotion and distribution. The fact that the product is essentially expensive sweet coloured water pales into insignificance in this instance.

---

The funny thing here, Richard, comparing the price of my Diet Coke (definitely not sweet, by the way) to other beverages available, it is one of the cheapest drinks I can find. About the only thing less expensive would be tap water! I pay more for milk, fruit juice, Kool-aid, (all three of which I cannot drink), or even spring water! And you certainly would pay much more for beer!

quote:

---

Coca-cola is successful because of its very good promotion and distribution. The fact that the product is essentially expensive sweet coloured water pales into insignificance in this instance.

---

Why? Because it's not beer? Or real Ale?

There is an absolutely hilarious ad campaign going on here; I have no idea if it is only in Chicago (Asa or Morgan?). It is by an animal rights group that hates milk because they allege that they take calves away from cows when they are born, pen them up, and kill them for veal. Supposedly, they do this to preserve the cow's milk. So--the ad campaign (and I kid you not) is that beer is healthier than milk! Milk, in this campaign, clogs the arteries, while beer, in moderate quantities (I don't think 4 pints is considered moderate!), dilates the blood vessels, thus lowering blood pressure. Furthermore, they say, beer has silicone (does it, Richard? First I knew of that!) which strengthens the bones. Now--of course they didn't mention the calcium in milk, which not only strengthens bones, but also lowers blood pressure. Further, as a farmer's daughter, I do not agree with their premise that calves are taken away and penned up. They just are not. Plus, of course the cream can be skimmed off the milk, lowering the fat content. And, babies, until 2 years of age, need the high fat content in milk for adequate brain growth. Still, I think it is a hilarious ad!

I didn't mean to imply that Coke was expensive compared with other drinks; I meant that it was expensive for what it is - sweet, coloured water. Check the contents if you don't believe me! You will find, by the way, that even the diet coke contains sugar and chemical sweeteners. It is less sweet than regular coke but it is not a bitter drink.

Beer is more expensive for two main reasons. Firstly it is a much more complex drink that takes far longer to make. Secondly there is a high tax on alcohol - and none on sugar.

I could cite abother exaample of a product that is sold 100% on its promotion. In the UK (and I am sure the USA) people go to the store and buy bottles of ordinary water sold at a price per gallon that is more that they pay for petrol (gas),

Yet EXACTLY the same product comes out of their taps (faucets) for less than one-ten thousandth of the price. Always available and virtually free yet clever promotion persuades them to waste millions of pounds/dollars on buying this, quite pointless, product!

Richard English

Sorry, Richard! I do need to disagree with you on two points.

"You will find, by the way, that even the diet coke contains sugar and chemical sweeteners."

I will agree that Diet Coke has a chemical sweetener, but the reason I drink it is that it has NO sugar. I am diabetic, and this is one of the few things I can drink without worrying about it raising my blood sugar.


Point two: "Secondly there is a high tax on alcohol - and none on sugar."

You obviously don't live in New York State! All carbonated beverages have an 8% sales tax on them imposed by the state and the county I live in.

Now, to further confuse things, there is a tax on candy. However, if you buy large marshmallows, there is a tax on them, because they are considered candy. If you buy the little ones, there is no tax! They are a baking supply! Go figure!