Ooh, look! a button!herooftheageOctober 12 2010, 19:17:35 UTC
As may be, but it's also technically a vegetable. The distinction most people think of when they say tomatoes aren't vegetables is primarily cultural, with a bit of culinary meaning as well, and as such, not particularly amenable to a technical treatment. In the broad taxonomic sense of "animal, vegetable, or mineral?", tomatoes definitely qualify. :)
Re: Ooh, look! a button!iheronimusOctober 12 2010, 19:52:53 UTC
How is it technically a vegetable? The commonly accepted definition of a fruit is a seed-bearing part of a plant. Parsnips and potatoes do not have seeds. Of course, neither do mushrooms, for the sake of argument...
Re: Ooh, look! a button!herooftheageOctober 12 2010, 20:23:42 UTC
In the exact same sense that potatoes and carrots are tubers, and yet are also vegetables. That they belong to a refined sub-class doesn't deny them entry into the enclosing class.
I've maintained for years that the whole reason that the SCA mailing lists exist is so that people have someplace to vent. It's a relief valve on a pressure vessel...granted, most of those people are the ones representing the pressure.
Comments 11
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
8)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment