 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2010specialty and speciality
Waiter: The Norwegian salmon is our specialty/speciality. Why? Josh filted: >Waiter: The Norwegian salmon is our specialty/speciality. > >Why? Herring is off?...r > Waiter: The Norwegian salmon is our specialty/speciality. > > Why? I guess he just couldn't choose between the two words. If *you* would like to learn how to choose, why not research the two at <http://www.onelook.com/>. Here's a start: <quote> speciality NOUN: Inflected forms: pl. spe·ci·al·i·ties 1. A distinguishing mark or feature. 2. specialities Special points of consideration; particulars. 3. Chiefly British A specialty. </quote> <http://www.bartleby.com/61/38/S0613800.html>  SignatureLiebs > Waiter: The Norwegian salmon is our specialty/speciality. > > Why? Because Norwegian Salmon is farmed and readily available without affecting the wild Norwegian Salmon population. http://www.norwegian-salmon.com/salmon/extended-en.php?recID=58 These people seem to all be members of Greenpeace, but they're all flyfishermen who practice "catch and release." That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. They support the raising of fish on farms for consumption, but catch and release in the wild. "We don't like people eating fish that they catch themselves. People should eat fish from fish farms that other people catch. Also, I'm so humane because I don't kill wild fish, I only hook them, yank them out of the water so they start asphyxiating, and then after I remove my hook by gouging out half of their mouth I throw them back in the water right before they die. Isn't that great? All that torture simply for my amusement." If you're going to be an animal rights/environmentalist/whatever sort of weirdo, at least be consistent. If you're going to subject some poor creature to torture like that, at least do it for a respectable purpose (like dinner). Animal Rights activists would never approve shooting deer in non-lethal places just to take the killing out of hunting. Why do they support such treatment of fish? Book proposal: Kill It And Eat It Or Leave It The Hell Alone Book proposal: How Dare You Test Shampoos on Rabbits When There Are So Many Fish That Deserve To Be Caught and Released Book proposal: Stupid Reasons To Be Smug and How To Believe Them Book proposal: How To Get Fish To Visit Your Boat, And Which Songs To Play To Make Their Stay More Enjoyable Book proposal: Bleep! That Blank Bleepin' Hurt, You Bleepin' Piece Of Blank Motherbleeper!: A C+R Fish Tells His Story Mike lightbulb filted: >Book proposal: How Dare You Test Shampoos on Rabbits When There Are So Many >Fish That Deserve To Be Caught and Released Whenever I see an announcement that a certain shampoo was not tested on animals, I wonder if that means they tested it on prison convicts...certainly they'd never be allowed to put it on the market if they had no idea what it was going to do to you.... When you hear about testing breast implants on laboratory animals, do you ever picture a couple of white-coated characters out of a Sidney Harris cartoon, with the caption "Have you been by Wilkins's lab lately? He's got a guinea pig in there with a rack you wouldn't *believe*!"...r Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' ) - 24 Jan 2005 19:15 GMT > lightbulb filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > never be allowed to put it on the market if they had no idea what it was going > to do to you.... What I think is silly is taking a substance that they know will do whatever and testing it on the eyes of lots of animals. I mean, if the stuff melts the iris and leaks out the contents of the eyes of the first 500 animals, why do you have to keep going with it? What do they think will happen with the next 500? > When you hear about testing breast implants on laboratory animals, do you ever > picture a couple of white-coated characters out of a Sidney Harris cartoon, with > the caption "Have you been by Wilkins's lab lately? He's got a guinea pig in > there with a rack you wouldn't *believe*!"...r Signature"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata." +-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous" Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting filted: >What I think is silly is taking a substance that they know will do >whatever and testing it on the eyes of lots of animals. I mean, if the >stuff melts the iris and leaks out the contents of the eyes of the first >500 animals, why do you have to keep going with it? What do they think >will happen with the next 500? They have no illusions about that, but they've already got the grant money....r Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' ) - 24 Jan 2005 22:00 GMT > Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > They have no illusions about that, but they've already got the grant money....r I'm trying to say that there is a middle ground. I want to know what will happen if I get some of the shampoo in my eyes, but I don't want them to feel like they have to blind thousands of animals when it's clear from the first few hundred what is going on. SignatureWhen will you see that leaving people in desperation only breeds feelings of despondent disillusionment that bring about acts like 9/11? It's one thing when we can't act, for example in some heart of darkness like the Congo, but it's another when we can act but just don't. It's time for all the free peoples of the world to stand up and say that governments which behave similarly to the one Saddam ran in Iraq for decades are simply unacceptable. On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:00:08 -0800, "Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting loud'' )" <stderr2@backpacker.com> wrote: >> Bill Bonde ( ''The chamber was in confusion, all the voices shouting filted: >> > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> They have no illusions about that, but they've already got the grant money....r I'm not sure what R.H. is referring to. Animal testing is done by private companies on their own products on their own budget. The FDA does animal testing, but it is from their budget and not from grant money. Doctors do animal testing of techniques and products under grant projects, but that's just one aspect of animal testing. >I'm trying to say that there is a middle ground. I want to know what >will happen if I get some of the shampoo in my eyes, but I don't want >them to feel like they have to blind thousands of animals when it's >clear from the first few hundred what is going on. Where do you get the thousands figure? Personally, I'm all for animal testing. Let 'em do all the rabbits they need to in order to make sure the product won't harm my grandchildren's eyes. I'm a bit biased since I spent so much time in the medical sales field. When I first started in the business, I learned the use of each type of surgical instrument by observing surgeons in animal labs. Every Friday I'd go down to the animal lab and pass instruments for a thoracic surgeon that was learning the technique of implanting heart valves and doing by-pass surgery by performing the surgery on dogs, pigs, and calves. Had I needed a by-pass in those days, I would have gone to that group. They learned by experience how many and what type of stitches it took to do a leak-proof anastomosis. Let the protesters of animal testing go to a surgeon that learned from a book. They'll find it's not at all reassuring to hear - just as they go under - "This is supposed to work. Cross your fingers." > lightbulb filted: > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > never be allowed to put it on the market if they had no idea what it was going > to do to you.... I heard somewhere recently about a bottle of dog shampoo that was labelled "not tested on animals". -- Regards John for mail: my initials plus those of alt.usage.english at tpg dot com dot au > > Waiter: The Norwegian salmon is our specialty/speciality. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the wild Norwegian Salmon population. > http://www.norwegian-salmon.com/salmon/extended-en.php?recID=58 However, farmed salmon gives me an upset stomach (as I discovered *before* I knew the salmon at the cafeteria here was farmed) and wild-caught salmon doesn't (as I discovered after the cafeteria switched). > These people seem to all be members of Greenpeace, but they're all > flyfishermen who practice "catch and release." That is the dumbest thing > I've ever heard. Stick around a.u.e. > They support the raising of fish on farms for consumption, > but catch and release in the wild. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Book proposal: Bleep! That Blank Bleepin' Hurt, You Bleepin' Piece Of > Blank Motherbleeper!: A C+R Fish Tells His Story I like it, and I too have referred to catch-and-release as fish torture. However, what eating farmed fish and released "angled" fish have in common is that they don't deplete the wild population. The idea may be to let people have the fun of eating salmon and the fun of catching salmon when there aren't all that many salmon in the rivers. I can't quite parse your last proposal, by the way. Do both "blank"s indicate the same word? SignatureJerry Friedman > I can't quite parse your last proposal, by the way. Do both "blank"s > indicate the same word? Yes, but feel free to substitute whatever words work best for you. Mike > > Waiter: The Norwegian salmon is our specialty/speciality. > > > > Why? > > Because Norwegian Salmon is farmed and readily available without affecting > the wild Norwegian Salmon population. Salmon farming has plenty of effects on the wild populations. Mainly it's because the fish farms are in the middle of wild populations. The "farms" are just big nets full of fish. Holes in the nets, which do happen, allow the farmed fish to escape, where they can get mixed in with wild populations. The farmed fish are packed in such densities that they would spread diseases throughout the farm, so the fish feed includes antibiotics and drugs. When (not if) they escape, they spread illness to wild populations. And even if they don't escape, wild salmon passing nearby can get infected. Also, escaped farmed salmon in many cases may actually displace wild salmon. Since farmed salmon have very low genetic diversity, if they displace wild species and then later get some disease, you could be left with no salmon in a particular area. Farmed salmon isn't as healthy to eat, either. Since they can't eat their natural food, tiny red shrimp which give them their flesh color, fish farmers have to feed them red dyes. These additives, in addition to all the antibiotics and medications they are fed, and other toxins such as PCB's, are present in the fish you eat. For more information put "farmed salmon" into Google. SignatureWilliam R Ward bill@wards.net http://bill.wards.net ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help save the San Jose Earthquakes - http://www.soccersiliconvalley.com/ >Farmed salmon isn't as healthy to eat, either. Correct, sir. >Since they can't eat >their natural food, tiny red shrimp which give them their flesh color, >fish farmers have to feed them red dyes. These additives, in addition >to all the antibiotics and medications they are fed, and other toxins >such as PCB's, are present in the fish you eat. And in spite of these measures, they often have a far higher bacteria count in their flesh than wild salmon do. I wouldn't touch a farmed salmon with a ten-foot pole. SignatureCharles Riggs > Salmon farming has plenty of effects on the wild populations. Mainly > it's because the fish farms are in the middle of wild populations. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > to all the antibiotics and medications they are fed, and other toxins > such as PCB's, are present in the fish you eat. I am not usually an "environmentalist nutter", but what I saw last year in the English Lake District was enough to put me off fish farming on inland lakes. However, I reserve my judgement on fish farming in the sea, since I have no personal experience on this aspect. Esthwaite Water is one of the smaller lakes in the Lake District National Park, and is about two miles long and a quarter of a mile wide. An idyllic beauty spot, providing you do not inspect it too closely. In the middle of the lake there is a fish farm, and a concomitant problem of green algae. The lake, which used to be pure clean water, is now infested with the algae. I assume that this problem of algae growth must be caused by excess food. The algae seem to thrive on whatever the fish do not eat. Having hired a rowing boat on Esthwaite Water and having seen the environmental problem at first hand, I have been completely put off eating any more fish-farmed fresh-water trout or salmon. I could not eat fish reared in such dirty water. Esthwaite Water is a national treasure, and surely must have more economic value in attracting tourists to the National Park than it could possibly have has as a fish farm. The lake has been raped. Richard Chambers Leeds UK. On Sep 21, 9:36 am, "chance" <cinci...@yahoo.co.kr> wrote: > "aquachimp" <aquach...@aquachimp.freeserve.co.uk> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > --Principles of English Grammar > by J.N. Patrick Nope. Whst is 'Nope? Isn't it the same as 'It was performed no sooner than said'? Well, what about this? Sackville-West E 228 she knew that Maud would be off again, no sooner than she had taken her nose out of the cup. This you may find on page 356, Part V, Syntax (fourth volume) A Modern English Grammar by Otto Jespersen |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.