Is a beef wellington a sandwich?

idk how to eat that either

Do Australians subsist on nothing other than shitposting and memes?

No because pastry isn't bread

I guess one could call it a sandwich, but it's a very different dish.

>>7889879
No you can't. The meat is being surrounded, not sandwiched between two slices of bread.

>>7889906
So it's a burrito

>>7889906
If hot pockets are sandwiches, why isn't this a sandwich

>>7889906
That sounds like a sort of burrito

>>7889785
WTF thats how you cut beef wellington? the fuck is the point of the pastry

>>7889915
you can cut it thicker if you want
but the meat is really tender and chewy so maybe don't shove a bunch in there are once

>>7889913
>hot pockets are sandwiches,
Wut? it's a Snack

File: ewrwere545435fg.jpg (77KB, 876x493px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 876x493px

>>7890094
???

>>7889906

anything enclosed in bread can be called a sandwich if convention accepts it. the core idea behind the sandwich is having a barrier between your hand and then bread.

however nowhere near enough of the surface of a slice of beef wellington is covered with 'bread' in order for it to really function as a sandwich, so i have to say that it really can't be called a sandwich.

It's clearly a pie

>>7890099

> the core idea behind the sandwich is having a bread barrier between your hand and the filling

>>7890097
>Americans are too stupid to understand a simple concept so it must be universal

Look, I'm sorry about your continued intellectual slide into the abyss, but beef wellington is not a sandwich and calling Hot Pockets a "sandwich" is equally as retarded.

>>7889785
If it is a sandwich then corndogs are as well.

>>7890094
Hot pockets are what you call a pocket sandwich.

File: ewrwere545435fg-1.jpg (28KB, 457x162px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 457x162px

>>7890141
Are you an ape or just blind?

>>7891087

I'm not the guy you're replying to, but IMHO the text on the packaging is simply wrong.

A sandwhich requires a filling between two seperate pieces of bread.

Wellington and hot pockets don't count because:
a) it's pastry, not bread
b) it's a homgeneous coating, not two distinct peices.

Wellington and hot pockets are both technically pies, but it's not as if anyone calls them that during normal conversation.

>>7890512
Corndog is not a sandwich, it's a sausage dipped in batter and fried.

File: soup.jpg (51KB, 500x361px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 500x361px

>>7889785
Is cereal a cold soup?

>>7891662
Salad with milk dressing.

>>7891096
What about sandwiches where the bread is sliced far in enough to hold toppings but it's still a single connected loaf? Or those French hot dogs where they just slice out a hole down the center of half a baguette and jam a hot dog in it?

This thread is a perfect example of just how fucked this board is.

File: 1.jpg (7KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x300px

>>7889785
>>7889906
>>7889911
>>7890099
>>7890512
>>7891096
>>7891662
>>7891680
>>7892004
holy fuck I need to lurk this board more often

>>7889920
>tender
>chewy
>pick one

Since a cheesy gordita crunch has two tortillas, does that mean it is a sandwich?

>>7892121
Stop breathing

>>7889913
They aren't.

>>7889820
But its made of flour and water... it must be bread.

>>7892949
bread has yeast in it

I started this and I'm so proud it's still aground.

>>7889785
Basically it's just a hot pocket for pommy cuckolds. So yes, since they're all fat cunts.

>>7889785
Yes. So is fried chicken. They both follow the same rules
1. Breaded
2. Eat with your hands

Give me a really good beef wellington recipe.

This thread made me realize this is an option for a main dish I can make for something different next holiday.

Okay, so I've been wondering if a jelly donut could be considered a pie. Also, could you call an open faced sandwich nigiri?

A sandwich consists, topologically speaking, of a filling, with two seperate pieces of bread for the top and bottom

Anything else is not a sandwich

>>7892952
Is pussy a sandwich?

>>7893200
No, a donut is injected after baking.

>>7893266
No, no filling and not two distinct slices of bread

>>7893269
What if you add flour, water, and a filling to it.

>>7893282
Still not two slices of bread is it you moron

/ck/ - Ontology, Epistemology and Topology

I can only think of eight classifications for sandwiches off the too of my head. It doesn't match any of them

>>7893285
You've got the ingredients for a slice of bread. Add some heat and it should become bread. Thus, sandwich.

File: Donner_Kebab,_Cologne,_Germany_(1057919169).jpg (82KB, 640x428px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 640x428px

is an kebab a sandwich?

>>7893289
But you wouldn't get two, seperate slices of bread

>>7893295
if the pita is fully cut in half, yes, otherwise it is a hotdog

>>7889785

It's a beefy welly mate

>>7890097

Hotty stuffer

>>7891662

Floaty cornrollers

>>7893295

Splitty sand breader

>>7893311
You'd just have to cut along the center. Vertically across the vaginal opening. Like cutting a loaf.

File: 3988.jpg (101KB, 1024x624px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 1024x624px

>>7893315
what about a dürüm? its made with flatbread

>>7893295
if the pita is fully cut in half, yes, otherwise it is a hotdog

File: 1.1.224_1_1.1.224_326X580[1].jpg (75KB, 580x326px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 580x326px

is a mexican stack a sandwich?

>>7893339
not bread

File: 1464518790622.jpg (32KB, 557x612px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 557x612px

>>7893336
>otherwise it is a hotdog

This thread is great.

File: Pückler-Schnitte.jpg (2MB, 1947x1635px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1947x1635px

>>7893341
What about ice cream sandwiches

>>7893333
Wrap not a sandwich

File: HandheldSavoryMealTaxonomy-SymmetryDefinition-1024x375.jpg (49KB, 1024x375px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1024x375px

So an individual sized beef wellington counts as a "savory handheld meal." Which is the basis of all sandwiches.

Pic is totally related

File: foodmain.png (2MB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x800px

>A sandwich is a food item consisting of one or more types of food, such as vegetables, sliced cheese or meat, placed on or between slices of bread, or more generally any dish wherein TWO OR MORE PIECES OF BREAD SERVE AS A CONTAINER or wrapper for some other food.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwich

>>7893361
Thank you based sandwich Darwin.

>>7893374
If you put a slice of bread at both poles, does the earth become a sandwich?

>>7893374
The on or between part of giving reference to an open face sandwich. Which is still in the sandwich classifications. This is also from wiki... Which isn't the best source.

A sandwich is a dish consisting of two or more slices of bread with one or more fillings between,[1][2][3] or one slice in the case of an open sandwich. Sandwiches are a common type of lunch food often eaten as part of a packed lunch. There are many types of sandwiches, made from a diverse variety of ingredients. The sandwich is the namesake of John Montagu, 4th Earl of Sandwich, a British statesman.

>>7893374
>posting pizza in a sandwich thread

>>7893395
http://www.zefrank.com/sandwich/

>An EARTH SANDWICH is created when two slices of bread are simultaneously placed on opposite sides of the EARTH.
>In May of 2006 Ze Frank issued a challenge to his audience (Sports Racers), in an episode of the early influential video blog "The Show" to create the first earth sandwich in history.

What the fuck man

>>7893404
Huh. Guess that a yes.

>>7893404
>One attempt was made between the island of Fiji and the African nation of Mali. In the story that was related to me, a young man in Fiji tried to call an embassy in Mali. The bureaucrat on the other end patiently listened to the request before saying that 1) it was certainly possible and 2) that it would cost money.

What the fuck Mali

>>7893374

that is clearly too restrictive though.

>>7893404
Just use spain and new zealand

>>7891087
>If I just call a thing a thing, it's a thing

Cool: You're a retard.

It's a fancy pasty

t. Brit

>>7893441
Why?

>>7893353
Is wafer a type of bread? If so, good, but I don't think it is

but is pizza a vegetable?

>>7893255
So salad can be a sandwich if you put croutons in it?

>>7893550
That is bread IN the salad. The bread has to in some sense contain the salad.

>>7893536
I think the fight was about how much tomato sauce would count as a serving of vegetables for school lunches.

>>7893556
which is odd because you know, tomatoes are fruit

>>7893556
Still completely, 100% misses the point about why people wanted to serve vegetables.

You can serve deep fried battered carrots and go "ohhh but it's carrot"

File: Pork_tenderloin_sandwich[1].jpg (2MB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2272x1704px

>>7893554
right so if you put croutons on the bottom of the salad and on top it's a salad
Otherwise you couldn't call this a sandwich

>>7891096
>>7893200
>>7890136
so is cannoli pie or a burrito

>>7893570
The meat it between the two breads, so Yes

More specifically, we could define a metric d(a,b) by the vertical distance between two points.

Take b1 to be top bread, b2 to be bottom bread, and F to be set of all filling points f, then a sandwich can be defined by anyshape which has d(b1,f)<d(b1,b2) and d(f,b2)<d(b1,b2) for all f in F

>>7893578
>The meat it between the two breads, so Yes
but the meat isn't contained by the bread
if that wasn't on the plate, the meat would be touching the table and you have to either take a bite of the meat without eating the bread or you would have to eat the bread part and then eat the two slices leftover

>>7893579
It matches my sandwich metric definition which I feel is sufficient

>>7893572
Also, would macaroni, mostaccioli, penne, and rigatoni just be tiny burritos?
Would a pasta dish containing those types be burrito salad?

>>7893580
>It matches my sandwich metric definition
But that's not the definition of a sandwich

>>7893584
It is an attempt to formalise the sandwich definition. You are welcome to submit your own definition. In mathematics it is common to postulate various definitions and then consider their implications. I think the definition I provide gives the most natural formulation of what most people would consider a 'sandwich'

>>7893588
>I think the definition I provide gives the most natural formulation of what most people would consider a 'sandwich'
Wouldn't that be the dictionary definition though?
Like, most people would say that Hot Pockets are sandwhiches because the package says they are

>>7893594
Ask the normal person to define anything and they will give a non-serious answer. That doesn't mean that mathematicians and others shouldn't try and formalise definitions

Americans need not apply

>>7893600
>That doesn't mean that mathematicians and others shouldn't try and formalise definitions
Doesn't it?
shouldn't they focus on more important things?
Specifically the things that normal people cannot define?

What is wrong with you people?

>>7893605
>How dare you discuss food!
you didn't have to even read this thread

>>7893605
1. nothing wrong with us

>>7893604
This thread proves most people cannot define sandwiches

>>7893572
>so is cannoli pie or a burrito

Neither. Cannoli is stuffed pasta. It can't be pie because it's pasta instead of pastry. And it can't be a burrito because there's no tortilla.

>>7893583
None of those are burritos because they are encased in pasta, not a wrapped tortilla.

>>7893614
>Cannoli is stuffed pasta
I think you're thinking of Manicotti
Cannoli is pic related

>not a wrapped tortilla
but a tortilla is just flattened dough that's been cooked
pasta is also flattened dough that's been cooked
and a burrito is filling wrapped around flat dough that has been cooked
so wouldn't pasta that gets filled up with cheese sauce also be a burrito?

>>7893618
So if I fill up a burrito with cheese, it becomes a fucking cannoli?

>>7893626
Or the other way around
Either way both burritos and cannoli are wrapped around a cheese based filling

>>7893524

because it is preposterous to assert that there is a substantive difference between a sandwich made of two slices of bread and one folded over or sliced open. one can scarcely imagine that whoever invented the sandwich would have a problem approving of a hot dog or wrap being grouped with their creation. it is fundamentally the same thing. the mode of eating is the most important thing. the layer of bread that encloses the ingredients is functional, and that functionality is what defines the sandwich. i don't think it matters that the bread is in any number of pieces.

>>7893680
So a whole fried potato is the same as fries?

>>7893614
Canollys are absolutely a pastry

>>7893680
A pizza is just an open faced sandwich?

File: 1467893095798.jpg (55KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 400x400px

>>7893361

empanadas are fucking pasties

>>7893684
yeah
it might taste different
but they are both fried potatoes

>>7893680
>functionality is what defines the sandwich

Nope. There are plenty of things that perform the same functionality yet have major differences in taste, texture, and how they are made. It's pointless to group all of those together under the same definition.

>>7893724

There are enough bona fide 'sandwiches' that are indisputably considered to warrant that term and have major variations between them to suggest that your reasoning is specious. And a split open roll vs a sliced open one makes for an extremely small difference.

>>7893732
>And a split open roll vs a sliced open one makes for an extremely small difference.

I agree that difference is negligible.

But that's not the extent of the "functionality" definition. For example, under that definition you might call a hot pocket, hand pie, burrito, or Cornish pastie a "sandwich"--but those foods are very different than what most people consider sandwiches, even though they have the same functionality (wrap a filling in something that you can hold in your hand and eat)

>>7893747
>but those foods are very different than what most people consider sandwiches
You could describe all of those foods as sandwiches in the same way that claw, a ball pein, and sledge are all types of hammer
Naturally if you asked someone to draw a hammer, they would most likely draw a claw hammer because it's the most iconic
In the same way that a traditional club sandwich is iconic for sandwiches

But obviously people not automatically associating sandwich with those other kinds of sandwich doesn't make them not sandwiches

>>7893761
>But obviously people not automatically associating sandwich with those other kinds of sandwich doesn't make them not sandwiches

I agree.
What makes them not sandwiches is the radical difference in how they are made.

Sandwiches are made with bread. A "hot pocket" or pastie contains no bread at all.


The method of preparation is very different as well, as the above are cooked after assembly, whereas that is atypical for sandwiches.

>>7893773
>contains no bread at all
How would you define bread?

test

>>7893777
Yeast-leavened dough which is baked prior to it's use in the finished dish.

File: retrieve[1].jpg (959KB, 2700x1800px) Image search: [Google]

959KB, 2700x1800px

>>7893807
So what would you call this?

File: biscuit[1].png (214KB, 351x271px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 351x271px

>>7893807
And this?

>>7893824
>>7893834

I wouldn't call them ordinary sandwiches. You need to add another word to specify the variation from the norm, just like "open face sandwiches" implies there's only one piece of bread instead of the standard two pieces.

The former is an "ice cream sandwich", which is understood to be made with sweet cookie rather than bread. The latter is a sausage egg biscuit.

Anyway, I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you trying to invalidate a definition by finding an exception? That seems a bit silly since there are exceptions to everything. Exceptions will always exist, and their presence doesn't invalidate a definition.

>>7893845
>You need to add another word to specify the variation from the norm
No anon, those words are added to describe the ingredients of the sandwich
A turkey sandwich isn't any different from a roast beef sandwich if the only differing ingredients are roast beef and turkey, but of course the other ingredients in the sandwich could vary wildly.
So why is switching out the bread any different?
What's the difference between a McGriddle and an McMuffin?

I'm not trying to find an exception, I'm trying to find enough exceptions to the rule so that the defintion is remade to fit larger circumstances
It's incomplete

>>7893861
>So why is switching out the bread any different?

Depends on exactly what you mean.
Switching, say, sourdough for rye would clearly taste different, but it's still a sandwich because aside from taste the rest of the process is unchanged. It's still slices cut from a loaf (cooked in advance) which is then assembled with a filling.

Switching bread for, say, pastry (in the case of hot pockets or pasties) is now very different. The cooking process and the assembly is now radically changed.

>>difference between a McGriddle and a McMuffin
I have no idea. I don't know what those are. I don't eat at McDonalds.

>>remade to fit larger circumstances
Why would you want to make a definition so broad that it loses any specific meaning? What's the point of that?

File: BLT-Ranch-Croissants[1].jpg (1MB, 3329x2205px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3329x2205px

>>7893880
>Why would you want to make a definition so broad that it loses any specific meaning
Because, like you said, you can always add words to specify what you mean
I don't know why you would prefer to be specific when you're talking about a very broad subject

>It's still slices cut from a loaf (cooked in advance) which is then assembled with a filling
So does it have to be a loaf, or can you use a bun
Because if not, hamburgers, sloppy joes, and so many other types of sandwiches wouldn't be considered sandwiches

>I have no idea. I don't know what those are. I don't eat at McDonalds.
There's virtually no difference between the two in terms of ingredients
A McMuffin is a breakfast sandwich that uses an english muffin, which fits your definition of sandwich
A McGriddle is a breakfast sandwich that uses two small pancakes that have globules of syrup inside of them that melt when you prepare it
They both can have egg, cheese, and sausage, so the only difference is the how you prepare the bread, other than that, it's just assembly

> bread for, say, pastry
But you defined bread as yeast leavened dough that is baked prior to it's use, so it as long as it hits that definition it would be fine
And even if you maintain that there's a difference between bread and pastry, what would you call pic related

>>7893266
more like a bao

>>7893895
>I don't know why you would prefer to be specific when you're talking about a very broad subject

Because I'm not talking about a broad subject. I'm talking about a filling between two pieces of bread.

>>loaf vs bun
they're functionally the same: a single piece of bread cut into pieces used to enclose the filling, therefore both qualify.

>>McDonaldds shitfood
Given your description I suppose those might both be sandwhichices?

>>globules of syrup inside them
Holy god that sounds awful. I'm betting that's imitation syrup too, right? Not actual maple syrup?

>> there's a difference between bread and pastry

Of course there's a difference, which I already explained. The "bread" in a sandwhich is cooked in advance, then cut and the filling is put inside it. The pastry for a wellington, pastie, or hot pocket is cooked with the filling already inside it.

>>what would you call pic related
Looks like a sandwich to me: it was baked in advance, then cut and the filling was put inside. In normal conversation I'd probably call it a "croissant sandwich" to make it clear that it was made with a croissant rather than typical bread.

>>7894122
Classic autism.

>>7893563
most tomato sauce is just pureed tomato and some spices. there's nothing unwholesome there.

File: image.jpg (69KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1024x768px

>>7892144
Nice dubs

>>7889785
No, it's a hotdog

>>7894235
It's actually a big ass corndog

>>7894289
No, it's a pastry dog

Present cat not included

>>7894289
I think you'll find it is actually a calzone

File: 1468522378387.jpg (75KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x375px

>>7892144
Make me.

Pic related is what you are up against, unfortunately.

File: image.jpg (922KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

922KB, 1920x1080px

is a hot dog a sandwich?

>>7889911
underrated
>captcha: which ones are sandwiches

>>7894403
Only if you cut the bun all the way in half.

Are sandwiches pastries?

So, my friends and I have had many a discussion on "is X a sandwich" and here's the official requirements for one we've agreed on, if it helps :

>Must be vast majority edible
>Must be either between two slices of bread or, barring that, a comprable substitute, or on top of a single piece of bread or an even closer subsitute

A comprable substitute meaning either two slices of something that's a facsimile to bread, or two separate pieces parts of the same piece of bread facsimlie

>>7889785
The Atlantic ran a great article about what defines a sandwich, and came up with four criteria that must be met:

1.To qualify as “a sandwich,” a given food product must, structurally, consist of two (2) exterior pieces that are either separate or mostly separate;

2. Those pieces must be primarily carbohydrate-based—so, made of bread or bread-like products;

3. The whole assemblage must have a primarily horizontal orientation (so, sitting flush with a plate rather than perpendicular to it); and

4. The whole assemblage must be fundamentally portable.

>>7895045
Is a wrap a sandwich?

It's technically a dumpling, not a sandwich.

The sandwich is a powerful clan.

But the dumpling family is larger and more powerful than you think.

>>7895045
I would argue that a sandwich is also an assembled dish of ingredients that are fully cooked or otherwise edible on their own, which can then be cooked again, as in the case of a melt, or eaten immediately.

>>7895066
As we've defined it no, only because the wrapping (tortilla etc.) is one 'fluid' piece, not two distinct sides (top and bottom)

>>7895066
>singular piece of grain substance surrounding filling, but not baked closed

if a wrap is a sandwich then a burrito must be a sandwich, as well as crunch wraps and almost anything from the inbred taco bell family

>>7895089
>I would argue that a sandwich is

You could argue that, but you'd be wrong.

>>7895102
Well, some of it could technically be, under >>7895061 and >>7895045 if it's like a quesadilla with a top and bottom tortilla or something.

File: image.gif (1MB, 346x191px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 346x191px

ITT: triggered Brits and their colonies and various descendents. I'm triggered. Americunt, we've been here since the mayflower. Beef welly is a Christmas tradition. It is not a fucking sandwich.

>>7895102
A burrito is a sandwich.

>>7895113
>>7895061
>4. The whole assemblage must be fundamentally portable.

so gimmick burgers with too much shit on them, although being a burger and by definition a sandwich, are no longer sandwiches since sloppier burgers/sandwiches can easily become more cumbersome than a non-sandwich food item and thus less portable?

>>7895134
I feel like that fits into "fundamentally" portable. Like, the 8 pound mega mondo burger with the works isn't portable, but a regular burger is so it's still a sandwich, you know?

>>7895134
Well, gimmick burgers are still fundamentally portable. It might be messy, but they're still eaten with the hands, right?

Plus, whether those things are "officially" sandwiches isn't really important, since regardless it's clear that they're riffing on what we know a sandwich to be.

The KFC Double-Down, for instance, wouldn't really be a sandwich based on these criteria because the "bread" isn't mostly carbohydrate. It doesn't really matter here because the Double-Down exists both in and outside the "genre" of sandwich, and uses its relationship to the idea of a sandwich as sort of a metaphor.

Do you see what I mean? Like, if someone served you two pieces of fried chicken, some cheese, and some ham on a place, you'd be like okay cool. But since we're supposed to conceptualize it as a sandwich, suddenly it becomes absurd and decadent based on what we know and expect a sandwich to be.

File: 1428230279566.jpg (40KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 900x900px

>>7895128
NO, IT IS NOT.

IT JUST ISN'T.

Why am I even trying to argue? Just look at this retarded fucking thread.

File: RZ6vCXe.jpg (26KB, 552x534px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 552x534px

>>7895189
I think a sandwich, beyond being portable, should also be meant to be eaten by one person. Or a decent sized slice should be portable and easily eaten by one person. Thus a muffaletta would still be a sandwich but a 40lb 2ft tall novelty burger would be akin to more of a Wellington, or meat cake, which must be sliced and served on a plate. In that case there is not even an aspiration that it be hand food or really portable, not even a slice.

Alas, as many things in life, there will be a grey area where it is difficult to agree. How high or heavy can a slice of burger be, before it can be declared unmanageable as a hand food. Tho answer may depend on many things, such as local regional culture and societal norms for hand food as well as the size of the hands of the person attempting to wield such a food item. Certainly trump would struggle with anything over 3 inches talk, while most Americans could probably handle at least 5 inches. Ops mom regularly takes 8 to 10 inches and remains unsatisfied, or so I'm told.

>>7895261
A burrito is a sandwich. So is a chimichanga.

File: 1289940881626.png (5KB, 274x242px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 274x242px

Can "Is X a sandwich?" be a new meme?

We're clearly all conflicted about this. But I think we can all agree on that, technically, anything can be a sandwhich.

>>7895375
Can soup be a sandwich?

>>7895386
Throw it into a bread bowl and boom, a case could be made

>>7895386
Can anon be a sandwich?

>>7895396
>>7895386
is french onion soup a sandwich?

File: 1351474300078.png (12KB, 560x407px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 560x407px

>>7895386
Sometimes I DO use leftover soup as sauce on sandwhiches.

File: sandwich meme.png (42KB, 709x300px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 709x300px

>>7895375
is this post a sandwich?

>>7895396
Agree
>>7895402
If put between bread i could
>>7895406
Needs more bread
>>7895410
Me too mate works great
>>7895419
Mama mia i have become the sandwich

File: 1288821461496.jpg (5KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x250px

>>7893374
The flesh on our body pretty much serves as a container for our vessels, flesh and bone and stuff.

Are we all actually, in fact, skeleton sandwiches?

>>7895451
No because bone is more like bread one could argue
While our flesh is still like ham and roastbeef
Ergo we are not sandwiches

File: 1418364316180.gif (409KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 512x384px

>>7895458
>>7895451
the crust of the earth's surface serves as a relatively rigid vessel for the less-rigid molten core, are we all living on one big sandwich?

>>7895472
Well if that is like soup in a big breadbowl and that counts i would say yes
If not we are just a big ass lava cake nothing more nothing less

>>7895406
French onion soup in a breadbowl.

But then would a cheeseburger with the cheese on top of the bun a sandwich?

What about a double stacked open face sandwich?

File: pizza-slice-570x412.jpg (68KB, 570x412px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 570x412px

Is this a 'za?

>>7895429
>If put between bread i could
does a bread that big exist?

File: 54ea973e15f98_-_01-wd0909-bagel-2.jpg (101KB, 628x371px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 628x371px

>>7895523
Why yes it does
The sandwich dream lives on!

>>7895045

your friends and you should be euthanised

>>7893684

well, for a start, 'fries' is plural. so if it's anything it's a fry. but no. fries are specifically rectangular and thin. if you made a whole potato that was rectangular and thin, then sure.

>>7895045
So you and your friends think that a book is a sandwich.

>>7895561
I should redefine it you're right, change "edible" to "meant to be eaten." I appreciate this kind of discourse bc it helps improve the definition of a sandwich

>>7895561
in the same way that sub sandwich is, yes
>contents contained between two distinct yet somewhat connected faces

>>7895511
>get two ny pizzas
>get a 'go 'za
>put 'go 'za between two pizzas
>'go 'za 'wich

>>7895600
it counts desu

>>7895568
>>7895561
>>7895568
Edible means meant to be eaten, he's just being a dumbass

>>7895627
Nope, the definitions are kind of on the fence about it whether it means something meant to be eaten or something that's safe to eat.

>>7895406
It's a closed face sandwich

>>7895632
meant to be eaten and safe to eat mean the same thing

>>7895627
It implies that, but the original purpose of the official definition was to remove any and all doubt as to what was/wasn't a sandwich - edible just means you CAN eat it, now that it's necessarily MEANT to be eaten. If we change it to intended for consumption and edible it removes any leeway memeposters may have

>>7895642
tell that to the rusty taco truck in my local church parking lot. they mean for you to eat the taco but its sure as shit not safe

>>7895642
Not even close.

>>7895651
If you can't eat it without getting sick it's not edible so that's moot

File: 0be179409640.jpg (27KB, 680x680px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 680x680px

>>7895642

>>7895663
>>7895653
those mean the same thing within the context of edible and eating
BTFO

>>7895667
No they don't.
BTFO

>>7895667
Even though you're baiting for a reply, it bears mentioning for anyone who agrees unironically - edible just mean it can be eaten without any harm coming to you - nontoxic crayons, paper, etc. - while intended for eating means just what it says, being meant to be eaten, like a hamburger or a pizza.

>>7890138
So pizza is a sandwich?

>>7895684
>>7895670
No
Every single definition of the word edible defines it as fit for use as food
which means that it's both safe to eat and that it's supposed to be eaten
I cannot believe that there are people over the age of 18 who have to be spoonfed basic knowledge
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/edible

adjective: edible
1.
fit to be eaten (often used to contrast with unpalatable or poisonous examples).
"nasturtium seeds are edible"
synonyms: safe to eat, fit for human consumption, wholesome, good to eat; More
noun
noun: edible; plural noun: edibles
1.
items of food.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/edible
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edible
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/edible

No wonder /ck/ is filled with Jackposting assholes
Retards like you are killing the board

>>7895694
Open face sandwich, yes
And for people who insist that it doesn't count because you bake the dough with the meal, you can buy prebaked pizza crust

>>7895684
>nontoxic crayons, paper, etc
Also, to clarify
Those things are not safe to eat
They make crayons non-toxic because they are made of wax and come off on your hands
Nobody would buy toxic crayons
Paper is also not safe to eat, well depending on the kind of paper that is, ordinary paper that you would find in a printer is not safe to eat

You can eat small amounts of it without harm
But if you eat too much of those at once, you will die

>>7895707
Wrong, the very first definition on merriam webster that I looked up was
>suitable or safe to eat

How does it feel to be so terribly, absolutely wrong, anon? Bet you wish you didn't use wording like "every single definition" now, huh?

>>7895723
>suitable
right or appropriate for a particular person, purpose, or situation.
"these toys are not suitable for children under five"
synonyms: acceptable, satisfactory, fitting
FITTING
debunked within seconds
merriam webster is never the first result anyway
nice try cherrypicking

>>7895731
>suitable or safe to eat
>or safe to eat
>safe to eat

Your wrongness is terminal :^)

I can't decide if you're just trolling a lost cause out of boredom or really that terrible at reading, but either way I'm amused.

>>7895738
>This is the very first definition I found
>no wait, not that one, the second definition
neat emoticon though

>>7895740
>"every single definition"
>instantly proven wrong
>wah wah wah cherry picking ;_;

Anon, I can't contain my keks anymore :^)

>>7895750
>every single definition
>definition supports my argument
>IT DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IF I IGNORE PART OF IT
Every single definition of the word edible defines it as fit for use as food

>>7895760
I don't have to ignore part of it, my argument was always that edible means either of those things.

You're the one who has to rely on ignoring half the definition, which you're doing right now.

>Every single definition of the word edible defines it as fit for use as food
And many of them also define it as safe to eat even if it isn't fit for use as food. Deal with it :^)

>>7895694
Only if you fold it all the way in half.
New Yorkers didn't want to do anything the way those filthy Chicagoans do, so they invented a way to eat pizza without a spoon. They also lacked the technology to make a proper breadbowl. The closest they could get was a bread dodecahedron. So they instead made their 'za on breadleather. (Originally from the hide of a whole-wheat sheep, aka a sheap) this allowed them to boat shaped pizza. It became very popular in the docks, but clumsy dock workers would drop their lunch in the water, sinking and becoming a submarine, hence the name sub-sandwich.

>>7895766
>Only if you fold it all the way in half.
Wrong. You can put one slice on top of another upside down. That's the real pizza sandwich.

>>7895765
>I don't have to ignore part of it, my argument was always that edible means either of those things
> edible just mean it can be eaten without any harm coming to you
Unless that's not you anon, in which case you never actually did anything except disagree with me
You didn't have an argument

>>7895694
it is an open faced sandwich

guys pls stop fighting about non-sandwich semantics I just wanna improve the definition of a sandwich ;-;

>>7895773
I don't know, it's possible you have me confused with someone else. I was here all the time arguing that there are two different parts of the definitions and that you can't just ignore half of them as it pleases you.

Please point out where
>edible just mean it can be eaten without any harm coming to you
was said. Keep the operative word "just" in mind.

>>7895780
A sandwich is just something that's inbetween two different things
in terms of food, it's food that's inbetween other food

Why get any more specific than that?

will you autists please either accept the dictionary definition you don't like or stop maintaining that the dictionary is always right

>>7895786
So, like, soup is a sandwich? There's a layer of soup in between the other layers of soup after all.

>>7895782
>you can't just ignore half of them as it pleases
I'm not
I'm saying that the definition for the word edible is fit to be eaten
which means that it's meant to be eaten and safe to eat

>Please point out where
>>7895684
>>7895684
>>7895684
just being the operative word

>>7895788
The dictionary is always right, unless you're dealing with obscure slang that hasn't gotten in there yet. Which we certainly aren't in this case.

>>7895789
No, unless it was a different kind of soup
soup doesn't have layers if it's homogeneous
you wouldn't even be able to say that the stuff inside of stew or soup is a sandwich because there's no discernible end/beginning

But you can dip a sandwich into soup

>>7895792
>I'm saying that the definition for the word edible is fit to be eaten
Well you are strictly right, but when I say that the definition of the word edible is safe to eat is equally strictly right.

Why? Because if we term it that way, both of us were ignoring half of the definition.

The definition is fit to be eaten or safe to eat. Not just one of those things or the other. Both.

Therefore a book is a sandwich according to that other anon up in the thread.

>>7895789
Well because it isn't JUST food between other food
>>7895786
Well based off of this definition >>7895045 soup doesn't work because, without a bread bowl etc., there's no bread facsimile

>>7895794

no, the dictionary is in fact almost never 'right', that doesn't stop it being useful

>>7895794
>>7895788
an item of food consisting of two pieces of bread with meat, cheese, or other filling between them, eaten as a light meal

merriam:
a : two or more slices of bread or a split roll having a filling in between
b : one slice of bread covered with food

dict.com:
1.
two or more slices of bread or the like with a layer of meat, fish, cheese, etc., between each pair.
2.
open sandwich.

wiki:
A sandwich is a food item consisting of one or more types of food, such as vegetables, sliced cheese or meat, placed on or between slices of bread, or more generally any dish wherein two or more pieces of bread serve as a container or wrapper for some other food

>>7895798
>soup doesn't have layers if it's homogeneous
Wrong, most soups are not homogenous. The vast majority have chunks of stuff floating in them, fats floating on the top, and deposits of possibly different stuff falling down to the bottom.

>>7895803
The dictionary is always right as long as it's dealing with the same usage of the word you're looking up in it.

>>7895803
>the dictionary is in fact almost never 'right'
the fact that you had to put right in quotes means you're probably wrong
not 'wrong', but wrong

its a pastry you dumb cunts

>>7895807
But that's only if you let it settle or don't eat it right away
And it becomes homogenous if you add enough heat or stir it, so that's a meaningless point

>>7895786
so a pie is a sandwich? cordon bleu is a sandwich? sushi? do the pieces of lettuce that end up in between croutons at random times in your salad just small transient sandwiches?

>>7895818
The only time when "soup" is still homogeneous is when you haven't added any ingredients to the water yet.

File: image.jpg (136KB, 560x349px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 560x349px

Is this a sandwich

>>7895810

dealing with the same usage as what?

>>7895812

>the fact that you had to put right in quotes means you're probably wrong

i mean it doesn't perfectly and universally encapsulate the meaning of a word. it isn't the resource you're looking for if you want a technical definition of a foodstuff. it's just a general description of how a word is currently used.

>>7895820
>so a pie is a sandwich
yes

>cordon bleu is a sandwich
yes

>sushi
only if you consider a wrap a sandwich, but yes

>do the pieces of lettuce that end up in between croutons at random times in your salad just small transient sandwiches
yes

Also for the dictionaryfags, isn't it better to have "edible and intended to be consumed" instead of just one or the other? That way all arguments about which means what and how the two definitions overlap is moot? Better to have a bit of redundancy than the possibility for some to interpret it as an incomplete definition.

>>7895822
water isn't soup
still, even if it separates into layers, it's still a part of the soup
none of the parts of the soup are considered not soup, so it's homogeneous

>>7895825
that doesn't mean it's wrong
it means it's not accurate, but it's not incorrect

>>7895825
>it's just a general description of how a word is currently used
Which is what this argument is based around.

>>7895831
How about "intended to be consumed and safe to consume as food"

>>7895833
>water isn't soup
Prove it. Regular water has plenty of things dissolved and floating around in it, many of them organic and even giving taste to it.

>still, even if it separates into layers, it's still a part of the soup
>none of the parts of the soup are considered not soup, so it's homogeneous
In this case a sandwich is not a sandwich either, because it's homogeneous. None of the parts of a sandwich are considered not sandwich after all.

>>7895822
is tomato soup technically a homogenous soup?

by extension, is it even really a soup if thats the case?

>>7895833
>>7895834

the point is that the 'right' answer being looked for in this thread is not found in dictionaries.

>>7895845
Depends on how close you look.

>>7895846
Obviously wrong, since we found the right answer in the dictionary.

>>7895820
As the guy who posted the first definition, the croutons between lettuce point is actually incredibly interesting as a technicality and deserves to be explored further, I'm keeping that in mind
>>7895837
I kept everything the same but changed "edible" to "edible and intended for consumption," as regardless of the disagreements on edible it at least does mean safe to be consumed even if that may include the intention of eating as well.

>>7895850
Edible already means "edible and safe for consumption", you didn't change anything here. If people argue about edible itself this isn't going to stop them.

>>7895843
>Prove it
because it's not food
it doesn't contain enough essential nutrients, particularly macronutrients like fats, carbs, or proteins

if you added those things, it would become a food and therefore soup

>None of the parts of a sandwich are considered not sandwich
Actually, if you take those things out of the sandwich, they aren't considered part of the sandwich
for example
if I was eating chicken noodle soup and I spilled some of the broth on the floor, people would say "hey, you spilled your soup"
if I was eating a sandwich and some bacon fell on the floor, people would say "hey, you dropped your bacon"

>>7895850
if you're trying to specify, why would you not want to be as specific as possible
just add edible; ie, safe to eat and intended to eat

>>7895848
in terms of it being one consistency throughout, i would say it IS homogenous, as you will never encounter any substance besides the single component of the soup during the meal.

since it is one homogenous substance, is it truly a soup?

>>7895856
Yeah, but I added intended for consumption, not just safe for. If it was just edible the stuff that happened in this thread happens with the definition of edible, and if just intended for consumption I guarantee someone would say "So if I have some uranium ore between bread and want you to eat it is it a sandwich?" or something to that effect.
>>7895871
Just to cover all my bases more than anything honestly

>>7895862
>Actually, if you take those things out of the sandwich, they aren't considered part of the sandwich
Same goes for soup. If you take a floating noodle or something out of the soup, then that piece certainly isn't a soup on its own. It's just a noodle. If you dropped such a noodle on the floor, people would tell you "hey you dropped a noodle".

>>7895872
No, see, if you look close enough you eventually find a level where it isn't a single consistency anymore.

>>7895874
>Yeah, but I added intended for consumption, not just safe for.
Intended for consumption is ALSO already a part of edible. This is what the entire dumb argument was about.

>>7895850
>>7895820
Also we've tentatively come to the addition of "prepared with the intended purpose of being eaten in a way that fulfills the rest of this definition of a sandwich" to discount the lettuce/crouton loophole, thoughts?
>>7895894
While this is true, having that bit of redundancy just ensures that this type of argument won't come up, a happy medium - those who don't think the intention is a part of edible have it there, and those who do can safely ignore the repetition

>>7895877
Nah, because it's soup, people would still say your spoon is filled with soup if you pulled a bunch of noodles out with your spoon, particularly because they are considered the same thing, you could say soup and noodles interchangeably

either way, if your soup isn't homogeneous, could you call it soup?
If all the noodles are on one side and all the chicken is on the other, is that actually soup?

>>7895906

>Also we've tentatively come to the addition of "prepared with the intended purpose of being eaten in a way that fulfills the rest of this definition of a sandwich"

no. when you start bringing intent into the definition of an object you know you've fucked up.

>>7895887
the same could be said for pure water, because even when water is in its most pure form it will still have a very small concentration of hydronium present, just because of how water interacts with itself

>>7895911
No, if you pick a noodle out of a soup and drop it on its own, then it's a noodle, not a soup. If someone afterwards asks "Did you drop a noodle there?", the correct answer would be "Yes." This proves that soup is not homogeneous any more than a sandwich is, as long as it has freefloating bits of food in it.

A similar situation would be if you take a potato chunk out of a soup and drop it. It's a potato chunk, not a soup anymore.

Likewise, if you take a slice of cheese out of a sandwich, it's a slice of cheese, not a sandwich anymore.

>>7895915
We already have "intended for consumption" though, is that a red light as well? Or do you just mean intent fucking it up when it's nitpicky, as it is with that newest addition? Because imo the intended for consumption is a vital part of the definition.

>>7895911
>if your soup isn't homogeneous, could you call it soup?
Yes, because most soups aren't homogeneous even from casual observation in the first place.

>>7895939

>We already have "intended for consumption" though, is that a red light as well?

yes.

a mantelpiece does not need to be intended to be a mantelpiece. the sky does not need to be intended to be the sky. a sandwich does not need to be intended to be a sandwich. a sandwich simply is a sandwich.

>>7895911

If the wetness of the noodle in the soup is enough to keep it a soup even when removed from the rest of the ingredients, then if you take a slice of ham out of a sandwich and it still has some mustard smeared on it that means that slice of ham is still a sandwich despite not having any bread around it.

>>7895931
>the correct answer would be "Yes."
But you could also say that you spilled some soup on the ground because the ingredients of a soup can also be interchanged with soup
You can take a potato chunk out of soup and drop it and it still makes sense to say "I dropped some soup"
You can take a slice of cheese out of a sandwich but it doesn't make sense to say "I dropped some sandwich over there"

If you let someone try some of your soup, you spooned some soup up, and it was mostly or all potato, they would still be trying some of your soup

If you let someone try some of your sandwich, you took a single slice of cheese out, and there was nothing else touching the cheese, they wouldn't still be trying some of your sandwich
Even if the slice of cheese is literally some of your sandwich, it's not some of your sandwich in reference to the whole of the sandwich

>>7895950
>But you could also say that you spilled some soup on the ground because the ingredients of a soup can also be interchanged with soup
No they can't. In that case dry noodles would be soup.

>>7895948
>it that means that slice of ham is still a sandwich
it's an open face mustard sandwich

>>7895950
>You can take a slice of cheese out of a sandwich but it doesn't make sense to say "I dropped some sandwich over there"
It does though. You can say "I dropped some of my sandwich." Makes perfect sense to me.

>>7895952
>In that case dry noodles would be soup
only if it was part of a soup before
noodles aren't soup unless they are part of a soup, even if they aren't fully cooked or cooked at all

>>7895959
Noodles are never soup on their own, they are only soup when combined with the other ingredients necessary to make it a soup.

Likewise a slice of cheese is never a sandwich on its own, it's only a sandwich when combined with the other ingredients necessary to make it a sandwich.

>>7895956

that's because the formulation 'some of my ___' can be used to refer to both a multiple quantity of something and a subdivision of something.

'some ___' usually means a multiple quantity of something.

>>7895956
It doesn't make perfect sense to me anon
or really any sense
especially if the sandwhich hasn't been cooked

>>7895947
But you see, a mantlepiece is made specifically to be a mantlepiece - intended for that use. The sky is a natural thing, so it doesn't work with this type of definition because it wasn't "made," and the sandwich issue is the hot topic of this thread! We may have to agree to disagree though, as I believe intention in a definition isn't inherently bad, but can understand where one may draw issue with it.

>>7895965
No, it's because soup is uncountable.

>>7895964
>Noodles are never soup on their own, they are only soup when combined with the other ingredients necessary to make it a soup
I don't see where you're disagreeing with me

>it's only a sandwich when combined with the other ingredients necessary to make it a sandwich
But that's where the similarities stop anon
If you asked for some of my sandwich, and I gave you a slice of cheese, that wouldn't be some of my sandwich, it would just be a slice of cheese
Unlikewise, if you asked for some of my soup, and I gave you a spoon full of noodles, it would still be a spoonful of soup
Probably because of the definition of a sandwich, which is foods with other foods between them

>>7895977
>I don't see where you're disagreeing with me
The part where you claim soup is always homogeneous. If it was, then that wouldn't be the case.

>>7895977
>If you asked for some of my sandwich, and I gave you a slice of cheese, that wouldn't be some of my sandwich
Uh, technically it would be?

I mean, if there's cheese in your sandwich then some of your sandwich is cheese.

>>7895980
>technically it would be
in the sense that cheese is a part of my sandwich
not in the sense that cheese is representative of my sandwich and/or that it is the sandwich

If it was a grilled cheese sandwich and I gave you some cheese, then yes
but if it's just a slice of cheese among layers of other things, then no

>>7895978
Curry is a soup, rather a stew, but rice that is only part of the soup if it's part of the soup
If you mixed the rice into the curry, then you would say that the rice is a part of the curry
But if you didn't mix the rice together with the curry, you wouldn't be able to say that the rice is a part of the curry

>>7895996
>in the sense that cheese is a part of my sandwich
>not in the sense that cheese is representative of my sandwich and/or that it is the sandwich
Same goes for a noodle soup. If you separate a noodle from it then it stops being representative of the soup and/or isn't the soup anymore. It's easy to see this is true, because there are different ingredients present in different amounts, same as with the sandwich case.

>>7895996
Look, I think most of the problem here comes from completely different uses of the word homogeneous. I think you're using it wrong, and I've been using the dictionary definition myself, though please don't hold this against me because I don't want to restart the dumb "are dictionaries right or wrong?" debate again.

To me it's very simple. If you can perceive a difference in quality between different parts of something, then it's not heterogeneous.

Because a noodle is different from the water in the soup in which it floats, and therefore different from the soup as a whole, and can also be physically separated from the soup, soup is not heterogeneous. The same goes for a sandwich.

File: 6076882995_f515eb5903[1].jpg (137KB, 500x380px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 500x380px

>>7896003
>If you separate a noodle from it then it stops being representative of the soup and/or isn't the soup anymore
No it doesn't anon
If I gave you some of the noodles from my soup, it would still be considered soup
If I gave you the bacon from my sandwich, it wouldn't be considered sandwich

This curry is served with rice, but is the rice considered part of the curry or an ingredient in the curry?
No, but if soup is non-homogeneous, you would be able to consider the rice a part of the curry

>>7896011
>To me it's very simple. If you can perceive a difference in quality between different parts of something, then it's not heterogeneous.

not the anon you're arguing with but dont you mean homogenous?

>>7896014
>If I gave you some of the noodles from my soup, it would still be considered soup
No it wouldn't be. You just picked some noodles out of the soup, you didn't give me any other parts of the soup itself. What you gave me isn't a soup anymore, because it isn't a "primarily liquid food" or whatever definition of soup you're using.

>>7896017
Ask google.

>>7896011
>I think most of the problem here comes from completely different uses of the word homogeneous
No, most of the problem comes from perceiving a difference in the mixture
I believe that if you ate all the noodles from your soup, you could definitely say "I ate noodles" but you could still say "I ate soup"
The other anon doesn't

>>7896021
Because if you ate dry noodles you didn't ate soup. Dry food isn't a soup even if you took it out of a soup.

>>7896020
>You just picked some noodles out of the soup
But then that would mean if you're eating soup you would have to have a completely varied spoonful every time you got a bite because if you only bring up a spoonful of broth or vegetables or chicken, that doesn't count as soup

>>7896026
But if you can take drier parts out of a soup, then what's to differentiate it from wetter parts of a sandwich?

Are soups and sandwiches truly the same thing?

>>7896024
if it came from a soup then it's still soup when separated
if I'm eating pasta straight from the box, then I'm eating pasta
if I'm eating fried chowmein from the bottom of the bowl, I'm still eating soup

If you drink all the broth and only broth and you only have noodles left, you still drank soup
You drank all the broth, but you still drank soup
If you finish all the noodles off, you're still eating soup
If you don't finish all the noodles off, you still ate soup

But this doesn't really apply to sandwiches
If you eat the sandwich by layers, you still ate a sandwich
But if only eat the cheese from the sandwich, you didn't eat sandwich

>>7896017
Actually, yeah, sorry. Didn't catch that.

File: 1468286961208.png (28KB, 622x659px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 622x659px

this thread is gripping

>>7896037
>if it came from a soup then it's still soup when separated
So if I take the noodles out of a soup, and pour pasta sauce over them before eating them, I'm still eating soup?

You know, kind of like the "soup" in which the regular pasta noodles are cooked.

Turns out all pasta is soup.

>>7896037
At this point we are both just rehashing the same arguments and there is no agreement in sight, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

>>7896034
How the food is comprised and how much liquid is involved

>>7896047
>So if I take the noodles out of a soup, and pour pasta sauce over them before eating them, I'm still eating soup
yes
and if you took those noodles and put them between bread, it'd be a sandwich
and if you took those noodles out of the bread and threw the bread away, it wouldn't be a sandwich anymore

>>7896055
That's fine
Soups and sandwiches aren't the same thing
But you can dip a sandwich into soup

>>7889785
no. a calzone is not a sandwich. both have raw dough upon initial assembly. sandwich bread is cooked at initial assembly

>>7896058
>>7896060
>That's fine
Obviously not if you disagree to disagree, silly anon.

The defining characteristic of what a meal currently is comes from its present state, not its past, because the only thing that matters is how the food is when you eat it.

Even if something used to be immersed in water, if it isn't anymore then it can't be called soup anymore.

A pasta and a soup are not the same thing, just as a sandwich and a soup are not the same thing, even though by your definition all cooked food, including pasta, is soup.

>>7896044
imagine if /ck/ put this much effort into... well anything else really

>>7893413
>it would cost money.
How expensive is a slice of bread in Mali?

>>7895561
Its a knowledge sandwich

>>7897309

a lot cheaper than the valuable service of putting a slice of bread on a precise spot on the ground to make a sandwich out of it. bread is common - putting the world in a sandwich is relatively scarce.

>>7893578
Criminally underrated post

File: sandwich de calzone.jpg (404KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 1024x768px

>>7889785
My calzone sandwich.
shits good bro

Guys, what about a >toast sandwich?

>>7897309
I think it's more like "How expensive is a stupid publicity stunt, and the proof you did it, in Mali?"

>>7893609
2. NOTHING WRONG WITH US

But guys, is an oreo a sandwich?

>>7900891
Yes

Are tostadas a sandwich?

>>7892004
This is awesome

File: 01.jpg (1MB, 2592x1138px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2592x1138px

haggis wellington

>>7893570
The bread has to be enough to be held in your hand, you mongoloid

>>7893286

Underrated post.

File: ramen.png (241KB, 1366x668px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1366x668px

>>7893286
kek

>>7901074
HAH! I need to try this.

You have any good recipes, I don't want to haggis to shrink or sog too much during cooking.

>>7901074
Is this a sandwich?

Is a calzaone a sandwitch?

>>7889817
Why would you ask this question when the worst shitposters and spammers on 4chan have all been American? The facts are that American teenagers are the largest demographic on 4chan, who are also responsible for the influx of normalfaggotry due to their obsession with the current Burgerstan puppet election.
Australia doesn't even have a reliable 1st world Internet connection.

>>7889785
No. Not even close.

File: mario wut.png (83KB, 222x238px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 222x238px

>>7893361
I am disturbed by the 'Double Down' being on here.

>be me
>go to KFC
>order double down
>Cashier looks at me
"Are you sure?"
>re-affirm my self-hatred

I deserved everything I got that day.

>>7895045
>vast majority edible
D-do you guys put something on your sandwiches that I don't? Because something like 100% of what I eat is considered edible.

>>7902084
>he doesn't have knowledge sandwiches

>>7893355
So burrito?

>>7902084
Nah, it's just that clause came from someone bringing up "so what if there's a speck of dirt in it, does that make it not longer a sandwich because it's a little bit inedible lol" because the previous iteration had the ambiguous phrasing of "must be edible." This definition is still evolving to remove as much ambiguity as possible

>>7902119
>"so what if there's a speck of dirt in it, does that make it not longer a sandwich because it's a little bit inedible lol"
That's not how it should work. Of course imperfect examples of sandwiches exist, but your definition needs to show what a theoretical perfect example is.

File: steak_kidney_pudding.jpg (50KB, 250x246px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 250x246px

>>7889785
Pastry surrounding meat is closer to a pie than anything.

If said pastry is boiled or steam you have yourself a classical "pudding"

>>7902119

> This definition is still evolving to remove as much ambiguity as possible

clauses like that only bring up more ambiguity.

>>7902133
So sandwiches are pudding pies?

>>7902124
I understand where you're coming from, but our goal was more to show what categorizes anything as sandwiches, and then from there find things that fit under this characterization as technicalities or otherwise make the characterization more strict, in a reasonable manner, to reflect the exclusion of the outliers.

>>7902145
Well yes, I suppose ambiguity wasn't the proper word. Prevent strawman arguments or obvious intentional loopholes would have been more fitting, instead of remove ambiguity.

If a hot pocket is a sandwich an uncut penis surely is one as well

I made a thread for the sandwich definition issue, I feel like we're too far off of the toic off beef wellingtons here >>7902364

>>7902391
Fuck your burrito thread

>>7893559
And so is zucchini. What's your fucking point genius?