jasonw1239 wrote:The Discovery channel has turned into a disgrace.
It is a shadow of its former self.
The powers that be decided that ratings trump educational programming and show junk TV almost exclusively now.
That is also the direction that The Learning Channel and The History Channel have taken.
The downward spiral continues.

I completely agree. Discovery Channel used to be awesome. Sucks now. But they do have Discovery Channel offshoots channels that have some worthwhile programming.

amazing coincidence that Adams & Jefferson both died 186 years ago today. happy birthday USA

Zenfinite wrote:Wait wait. Top Gear is hilarious. And no, I don't watch the British version. I find the American version plenty funny for my tastes. When they took the minivans across the Rockies?? Or when they drove the old ladies around in the supercars? Oh man, just nonstop funny.

Zen

Maybe they should put it on Comedy Central then.  

Badmike....time to start planning that California vacation now.

http://foodbeast.com/content/2012/07/05 ... on-burger/

   

Kingofpain89 wrote:Badmike....time to start planning that California vacation now.

http://foodbeast.com/content/2012/07/05 ... on-burger/

 :lol:  :D

\

Can we trade them all the lame In and Out Burgers popping up around here for one Slater's 50/50?  I'd do that in a second.

West Coasters, just to let you know, In and Out ain't that great.

Mike B.

Kingofpain89 wrote:

Badmike wrote:Can we trade them all the lame In and Out Burgers popping up around here for one Slater's 50/50?  I'd do that in a second.

West Coasters, just to let you know, In and Out ain't that great.

Mike B.

Feeling is mutual.  Just a quick rundown of where I would go for a "fast food burger" given a choice (in order of best to worst):

1. Whataburger
2. Five Guys
3. Culver's
4. Dairy Queen
5. Wendy's
6. Mooyah
7. Carl's Jr/Hardees
8. A&W
9. Jack In The Box
10. Sonic
11. White Castle
12. In-N-Out
13. Roy Rogers
14. McDonalds
15. Burger King

Steak & Shake isn't considered "fast" so its not on the list.  We don't have Shake Shack here and I've never had one so I can't comment on them.  In-N-Out burgers are decent but nothing special.  From all the hoopla I heard from so many people over the years about how great they were, I expected so much more.  And their french fries suck dry cat turds.  And Burger King being number 15?  It's only because I can't think of any other crappy chain burger places to put between them and McDonalds.  Their food is absolute garbage.  So much in fact I'd almost rather eat out of a dumpster.  The last two times I did (eat at BK....not out of a dumpster) I got food poisoning.  Distance between the two stores: over 400 miles.  :puker:

I try not to eat fast food burgers anymore unless positively necessary, as there are plenty of mom and pop burger joints around that serve a better hamburger.  But if I had to rate them, these are the only ones I ever eat at:

1. Whataburger
2. Carls Jr.
3. Wendys
4. Moo Ya
5. Sonic
6. In and Out
7. Five Guys


McDonalds burgers are trash. I can't remember the last time I ate at Burger King or Jack in the Box.  I seem to remember Dairy Queen burgers have an odd taste like they have some sort of filler (not necessarily bad, just an off taste).  As utterly average as the In and Out burger rates, I have to say the Five Guys burger is a completely ho-hum boring eating experience.  Whataburger is the class of this list, especially the specialty burgers like the A1 Thick and Hearty Burger, or the Chop House Cheddar burger.  The few times I've had a Carls Jr. (when in Houston or Oklahoma) I've been impressed.  Wendys, their burger is completely ordinary but never disappoints.  

Mike B.

Kingofpain89 wrote:Badmike....time to start planning that California vacation now.

http://foodbeast.com/content/2012/07/05 ... on-burger/

 :lol:  :D

Ye gods!! Glad I have already eaten breakfast for that would put me right off any meal...    

red_bus wrote:Totally charming article about a new edition of an old book.  I want one!!!  :D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18796493

Oh, me too!

You may well be right about that. I just love the langauge. Here is an extract from the wiki page on the title...

In Anglo-Indian English, the term Hobson-Jobson referred to any festival or entertainment, but especially ceremonies of the Mourning of Muharram. In origin the term is a corruption by British soldiers of "Yā Ḥasan! Yā Ḥosain!" which is repeatedly cried by Shia Muslims as they beat their chests throughout the procession of the Muharram; this was then converted to Hosseen Gosseen, Hossy Gossy, Hossein Jossen, and ultimately Hobson-Jobson.[3] Yule and Burnell were looking for a catchy title for their dictionary and decided upon this since it was a "typical and delightful example" of the type of the highly domesticated words in the dictionary and at the same time conveyed "a veiled intimation of dual authorship".[4]

The title has been further analyzed in a paper by Traci Nagle,[5] who notes firstly that such rhyming reduplication in English is generally either juvenile (as in Humpty Dumpty or hokey-pokey) or pejorative (as in namby-pamby or mumbo-jumbo) and that, further, Hobson and Jobson were stock characters in Victorian times, used to indicate a pair of yokels, clowns, or idiots (compare Thomson and Thompson).[6] The title thus produced negative associations -- being at best self-deprecatory on the part of the authors, suggesting themselves a pair of idiots -- and reviewers reacted negatively to the title, generally praising the book but finding the title inappropriate. Indeed, anticipating this reaction, the title was kept secret -- even from the publisher -- until shortly before publication.[7]