i have not
#teamsmoove are just kinda like, yo slow jam this shit, I just ride smooth and easy. No need for grandstandin...
Never driving you to a game again. Agree on the crunch though.Crunch + Anti schweinsteiger here
yeah, me neither
Neck and neck but just about all the posts are #crunchpride.
#teamsmoove are just kinda like, yo slow jam this shit, I just ride smooth and easy. No need for grandstandin...
Mood in all things.
Leave it in the fridge and it'll get crunchy as hell (but you'll have wasted your nutella)
I have to note that every single time I have been around a crunchy/smooth debate it is (1) started by a crunchy fan, and (2) the next 10 people to spout off are all also crunchy fans.I'm tempted to draw some lesson from this but that's probably unfair. But is so so consistent. Like real peanut butter.
For my part, it's not really a debate because it's not comparing what crunchy fans purport to be doing. Crunchy is not a form of peanut butter. Crunchy is either not-quite-finished peanut butter so some of the peanuts are not fully creamed, or peanut butter with something mixed into it. Which it's fine if you like that, but nobody wants to argue whether peanut butter with chocolate chunks is a better peanut butter than than peanut butter. If you like peanut butter with something in it, vaya con Dios with my blessing, But it's not a better peanut butter. It's just peanut butter with something in it.
Now, to digress, if you want to discuss food preparations that are interrupted partly done, let's talk pancakes where both outsides are fully cooked but when you put your fork in it the middle you get uncooked batter.
That's a piece of heaven on a plate.
But back to peanut butter, chunky is weird. Who mixes unfinished elements of a fully prepared dish back into a finished product? It's like making a perfectly popped bag of popcorn and then adding 10% uncooked kernels on purpose. Or taking a perfectly fine bottle of wine and plopping a handful of sliced grapes in it. Why? Why would you do that?
PS: I think JGarrettLieb might fight you if you did that to wine. He really likes wine. He also can't hear you because he likes heavy metal so speak up.
But I digress again. Smooth. Which is to say, I like peanut butter, as opposed to peanut butter with something in it.
If smooth peanut butter was so smug and the only peanut butter type, then why does it need the suffix "smooth" in front of it? Are peanuts really an addition to something that is just a different form of itself? I understand where you're trying to go with the chocolate chunks in peanut butter, but chocolate is different than a peanut. Crunchy is just a different form of peanut butter in my opinion, thus why there is the difference between "SMOOTH" and "CRUNCHY." If Crunchy was a form of peanut butter with something in it, would it not be called something like "Peanut Butter along with Peanuts" or "Peanut Butter with Crunch" to distinguish it is a mix, and not a single form of peanut butter?I have to note that every single time I have been around a crunchy/smooth debate it is (1) started by a crunchy fan, and (2) the next 10 people to spout off are all also crunchy fans.I'm tempted to draw some lesson from this but that's probably unfair. But is so so consistent. Like real peanut butter.
For my part, it's not really a debate because it's not comparing what crunchy fans purport to be doing. Crunchy is not a form of peanut butter. Crunchy is either not-quite-finished peanut butter so some of the peanuts are not fully creamed, or peanut butter with something mixed into it. Which it's fine if you like that, but nobody wants to argue whether peanut butter with chocolate chunks is a better peanut butter than than peanut butter. If you like peanut butter with something in it, vaya con Dios with my blessing, But it's not a better peanut butter. It's just peanut butter with something in it.
Now, to digress, if you want to discuss food preparations that are interrupted partly done, let's talk pancakes where both outsides are fully cooked but when you put your fork in it the middle you get uncooked batter.
That's a piece of heaven on a plate.
But back to peanut butter, chunky is weird. Who mixes unfinished elements of a fully prepared dish back into a finished product? It's like making a perfectly popped bag of popcorn and then adding 10% uncooked kernels on purpose. Or taking a perfectly fine bottle of wine and plopping a handful of sliced grapes in it. Why? Why would you do that?
PS: I think JGarrettLieb might fight you if you did that to wine. He really likes wine. He also can't hear you because he likes heavy metal so speak up.
But I digress again. Smooth. Which is to say, I like peanut butter, as opposed to peanut butter with something in it.
If smooth peanut butter was so smug and the only peanut butter type, then why does it need the suffix "smooth" in front of it? Are peanuts really an addition to something that is just a different form of itself? I understand where you're trying to go with the chocolate chunks in peanut butter, but chocolate is different than a peanut. Crunchy is just a different form of peanut butter in my opinion, thus why there is the difference between "SMOOTH" and "CRUNCHY." If Crunchy was a form of peanut butter with something in it, would it not be called something like "Peanut Butter along with Peanuts" or "Peanut Butter with Crunch" to distinguish it is a mix, and not a single form of peanut butter?
Don't bring pancakes into this, unless peanut butter is a favorite topping of them. That's acceptable.
Unfinished elements are fine to add to food/drinks. Some people love pulp in their orange juice/lemonade. Some people love to have fruit in their sangria. A smoothie will never be 100% smooth, bits of the fruit and seed will be mixed in, and that's fine.
When people are consistently confused and mistaken, you often have to explain seemingly universal undeniable facts, and address them as if they are children. It doesn't make them right, or alter reality.If smooth peanut butter was so smug and the only peanut butter type, then why does it need the suffix "smooth" in front of it?
When people are consistently confused and mistaken, you often have to explain seemingly universal undeniable facts, and address them as if they are children. It doesn't make them right, or alter reality.
I have to note that every single time I have been around a crunchy/smooth debate it is (1) started by a crunchy fan, and (2) the next 10 people to spout off are all also crunchy fans.I'm tempted to draw some lesson from this but that's probably unfair. But is so so consistent. Like real peanut butter.
For my part, it's not really a debate because it's not comparing what crunchy fans purport to be doing. Crunchy is not a form of peanut butter. Crunchy is either not-quite-finished peanut butter so some of the peanuts are not fully creamed, or peanut butter with something mixed into it. Which it's fine if you like that, but nobody wants to argue whether peanut butter with chocolate chunks is a better peanut butter than than peanut butter. If you like peanut butter with something in it, vaya con Dios with my blessing, But it's not a better peanut butter. It's just peanut butter with something in it.
Now, to digress, if you want to discuss food preparations that are interrupted partly done, let's talk pancakes where both outsides are fully cooked but when you put your fork in it the middle you get uncooked batter.
That's a piece of heaven on a plate.
But back to peanut butter, chunky is weird. Who mixes unfinished elements of a fully prepared dish back into a finished product? It's like making a perfectly popped bag of popcorn and then adding 10% uncooked kernels on purpose. Or taking a perfectly fine bottle of wine and plopping a handful of sliced grapes in it. Why? Why would you do that?
PS: I think JGarrettLieb might fight you if you did that to wine. He really likes wine. He also can't hear you because he likes heavy metal so speak up.
But I digress again. Smooth. Which is to say, I like peanut butter, as opposed to peanut butter with something in it.
Sangria is wine though. It just has fruit in it.Sangria is vaguely acceptable if it's over 90 degrees. It should never be confused with wine though.
Otherwise I would just grab the bottle and pour it out on the person that committed such sacrilege, it's a more productive use of the wine.
Sangria is wine though. It just has fruit in it.
This entire thread has me ruminating about philosophical languages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_towards_a_Real_Character,_and_a_Philosophical_LanguageWhen people are consistently confused and mistaken, you often have to explain seemingly universal undeniable facts, and address them as if they are children. It doesn't make them right, or alter reality.
Not directly a smooth VS crunchy point but my mom likes chocolate and peanut butter independently but not mixed together, that's weird right?