I heard a great story today about the importance of definitions. This speaker was telling us that when he speaks about defining "ethics," his students often say, "Oh, it's just semantics!" Here is what he tells his students:

A delicatessen owner moved into a shopping center, signing a contract saying that no other sandwich shops could lease space in that center. One day, he saw that a McDonald's was moving into the center. He contacted the owner of the shopping center, reminding him of the contract. The owner of the center said that hamburgers weren't sandwiches. So the deli owner sued the shopping center. The judge ruled in favor of the deli owner, saying that a "sandwich is meat situated between 2 pieces of bread."

Of course, if indeed that was the judge's ruling, I think it is balderdash. You don't need either meat or bread for it to be a sandwich. Look at all those croissant sandwiches or cheese sandwiches, etc.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Kalleh,

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:
... I think it is balderdash.

As the cop said, "Tell it to the judge, lady."

Tinman

Which would you rather have for lunch: a hamburger, or a sandwich?

Or would you prefer a sandwich or a BLT?

The second question is odd precisely because a BLT is a kind of sandwich. If the first question didn't strike you as odd, then in your mind a hamburger is not a type of "sandwich".

The thread about the BBC programme Balderdash and Piffle mentions the search for an earlier cite for a 'Ploughman's Lunch'. Although they later discovered an even earlier cite, they mentioned a reference in an American (I think New York) newspaper that defined it as 'a kind of open cheese sandwich'.

I wonder how that fits with the judge's definition.