Sinister: a smashing orangey bit

[Tag]

Hello,

It's good to know that amidst these irrelevant debates on education
cuts, the plight of the homeless, and Northy's (God, I miss him)
concerns about the CHEMICAL WEAPONS OF MISTER SADDAM HUSSEIN (READ
YOUR PAPERS PEOPLE!!!!!), that someone has their fingers truly on the
pulse of the nation.  I'm talking of course of Stewpot Murdoch, and
his wandering band of minstrels, who asked....

>*What makes a biscuit a biscuit and a bar a bar? For example, Twix, biscuit or 
>bar? 5,4,3,2,1 bar or biscuit? Which treat surfs the elusive dividing line the 
>best?

Bars are roughly cuboid in nature.  Biscuits are thinner.  So that a
Twix or a 5-4-3-2-1 is a bar, and a digestive is a biscuit.  Tunnocks
caramel bars (a tasty treat with a thousand uses) are bars.  But there
are a number of strange issues.  Fig rolls, for example, are not bars,
certainly, but are they called 'rolls' because veer away somewhat from
the biscuit concept?  And although 'if you like a lot of chocolate on
your biscuit' implies that a club is a biscuit, there is a difference
between biscuit as a filling or a base for a bar, and "a" biscuit.  A
club is not "a" chocolate either, even though it has chocolate in it.
A club is a bar.  And what about hobnobs?  They can be in two forms -
a biscuit or individually wrapped bars.  And jaffa cakes, which are
particular bone of contention for me.  Biscuit or cake?  Since they
are described as cakes, a recent EC directive decreed that they should
therefore be taxed accordingly.  And a jaffa cake contains light
sponge, chocolate and a smashing orangey bit, but not 'biscuit'.  But
I can't help feeling that an authentic cake should somehow be bigger.
I have no problem with them being called jaffa 'cakes', somehow jaffa
sponges or jaffa biscuits is aesthetically inferior, and a bombay duck
is a fish not a duck, and a parson's nose is not a nose at all, so why
should a jaffa cake be a cake.  A case of EC bureaucracy gone mad,
perhaps?  Maybe, other readers or indeed Stuart himself would care to
offer their views.

>and also
>
>*Who is the most famous living person?

The Lord Jesus, who lives in all of us ...

>Lastly, thanks Keith Watson for answering some of the new mailers so nicely.

... especially Keith.  In fact, I believe Keith is Jesus.  His polo
neck is merely a more stylish version of a halo.

Tag xx
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.     This message was brought to you by the Sinister mailing list.
.        To send to the list please mail "sinister at majordomo.net".
.  For subscribing, unsubscribing and other list information please see
.            http://www.majordomo.net/sinister
. For questions about how the list works mail owner-sinister at majordomo.net
.    We're all happy bunnies humming happy bunny tunes.  Aren't we?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------