A: Well, I called it dinner last night (it's digested now, so lemme explain a little bit more to ya). I am an extremely polite individual. And you are a nosey bastard. Picky eater too.
The term dinner has continued to refer to the largest meal of the day, even when this meal is eaten at the end of the day and is preceded by two other meals (i.e. gluttony). In this terminology, the preceding meals are usually referred to as breakfast and lunch (if you wanna feel like your on a trendy diet call it a Compressed Brunch). In some areas, this leads to a variable name for meals depending on the combination of their size and the time of day, while in others meal names are fixed based on the time they are consumed. Be creative an throw your target off with a bluff and have no fixed time. Even in systems in which dinner is the meal usually eaten at the end of the day, an individual dinner may still refer to a main or more sophisticated meal at any time in the day, such as a banquet, feast, or a special meal eaten on a Sunday (the above was a private feast obviously. And classy). In parts of the rural American Rednecked South and northern England, the word "dinner" traditionally has been used for the midday meal even if it was a light snack taken to school or work (and not for supper). The (lighter) meal following dinner has traditionally been referred to as supper or tea, though middle- and northern- English people still often refer to a large evening meal as tea.
In Western Europe the fashionable hour for dinner began to be incrementally postponed during the 18th century, to two and three in the afternoon, until at the time of the First French Empire an English traveller to Paris remarked upon the "abominable habit of dining as late as seven in the evening".
"Dinner" sometimes denotes a formal meal where people who dine together are formally dressed and consume food with an array of "utensils". But what is most important about this long Janey diatribe is that when all else fails and you have one hell of a meal in front of your big fat selfish hungry growling stomach... forget your fork and knife and just do what you do best,
USE YOUR DIRTY HANDS.
bye ? But I'm not finished with You yet
The Problem of Dirty Hands
This entry seeks to unravel these strands and clarify the central normative issues about politics that the cry of ‘dirty hands’ evokes. Beginning with an illustrative passage from a renowned 19th century English novel, the essay traces the dirty hands tradition back to Machiavelli, though its present vogue is owed mostly to the writings of the distinguished American political theorist, Michael Walzer. Walzer's views are explored in the light of earlier theorists such as Machiavelli and Max Weber and certain vacillations in his intellectual posture are briefly discussed. This leads to the posing of five issues with which the entry is principally concerned. First, is the dirty hands problem simply confused and its formulation the merest contradiction? Second, does the overriding of moral constraints take place within morality or somehow beyond it? Third, can the cry of dirty hands be restricted wholly or principally to politics or does it speak equally to other areas of life? This is the problem of scope. Fourth, how are the circumstances that call for dirty hands best described? Fifth, the dirty hands problem has affinities with the problem raised by moral dilemmas, but the question is: should those similarities be allowed to obscure significant differences? Political action must sometimes conflict with profound moral norms.
Now I'm finished with you. Smartass. bye.
