Interesting. Have I also been holding forks backwards all my life?Yes. Also, the knife is in the wrong hand.
Interesting. Have I also been holding forks backwards all my life?
(My god, in the past two days I've had so many flashbacks to when I watched My Fair Lady. Hey, it had Audrey Hepburn. I'd probably watch damn near anything if she's in it.:wub
Trying it out now, I guess I just never really thought about it. It just gets rotated to whatever orientation works best.You turn the tines down so that the handle of the fork doesn't get in the way of the knife and the back of the fork guides the knife through the meat. You put it in you mouth that way because the meat should already be attached with no reason to keep it balanced on top. This keeps the food, utensils, and your arms closer to you. Switch hands, rotate up: no elbows in the air and no fork sticking away from your face toward the opposite end of the table.
That's how most of us do it (I hope). Doesn't mean that's how I'd do it at a rare opportunity for a multi-course fine-dining meal.Throw it on fire for 4-6 min then shove it in face as desired. Pepper + salt only.
I'm actually feeling glad to be middle class after reading this thread.
I would have been confused about the full dinner setting myself, but thankfully the military, of all organizations, helped set me straight with events like balls or dining outs. I had vaguely been informed of the proper approach growing up in school, but it was never something utilized in real life for us.My first thought upon seeing that diagram will be a sign for you:
Casual with two forks and two glasses? There were always two forks in the silverware drawer back home while growing up, but I always figured it was so there'd be small forks for the kids in the house and big ones for the adults. That's how the table was always set, anyway: One fork sized to the person using it. The silverware was generally in the area of the plate. We all had functioning arms and hands and could pick them up even if they weren't in the approved locations.
I guess I'll just ask, since I'm in deep already: Why are two of each necessary? What can one fork do that the other can't do? Seems like more things to have to clean afterward.
What are the two glasses typically for? Water and something else? I...honestly don't know. I've always known food and a drink, singular.
There's some tone implied in here that sees this as a problem.
Or maybe it's just society slowly shedding an unnecessarily complex ritualized behavior which is only remembered fondly by some because it's an established memory from their younger days of how things "should" be.
Perknose, honestly, I think this is my favorite post of yours in recent memory. I don't always agree with either your actual point, or most often, your delivery, but you nailed it perfectly in a very mature fashion. :thumbsup:Learning to exist in different social situations is the mark of an adult. Being willing to do so is the mark of a successful adult.
In the situation you describe, your discomfort was probably vividly evident to your dinner companion, anyway. You didn't need to hide it. In fact, just the opposite.
You could have straightforwardly confessed to him that there were some points of dining there you were unsure about. This would have marked you as a honest man, secure in who you are, who felt no shame in not knowing a few details. It would have shown him that you trusted him personally to guide you in whatever you didn't know.
Meeting such situations head on shrinks them down to the unimportant triviality that they are. And, in case you haven't noticed, people love to impart their knowledge to someone who asks in such situations. Don't you feel the same when someone comes to you and asks for your guidance about something you know and they don't?
Ha, must have been some comical switching of the roles. That was definitely the way it was done in England during the era of the American revolution, unless I have bad sources. It was usually easy back then to spot an American by watching who switched utensils; Americans did not, Europe did.Quite the opposite actually. Americans are still doing the switch while the Europeans went back to cutting and eating with fork on the same hand. They thought it was too inefficient to keep laying down the knife and switch to the fork.
You could always go old school and whip out a tomahawkHa, must have been some comical switching of the roles. That was definitely the way it was done in England during the era of the American revolution, unless I have bad sources. It was usually easy back then to spot an American by watching who switched utensils; Americans did not, Europe did.
When England and/or Europe switched to the easier American way, America must not have gotten the memo and, in a comical twist, decided that it is indeed more proper to do it the English way and went back to switching hands to eat.
Honestly, that's why I do it from time to time - it seemed proper. It was always the situation where the efficient (or lazy) way was improper. When the hell did the English switch? Damn you, damn you all to hell!
Just wait, Americans will adopt the new English ways, and they'll just switch back and point and laugh yet again. They always wanted retribution, those bastards!
I wonder if we can get them to finally adopt American English. Just when they finally get comfortable dropping all those unnecessary U's, we'll adopt British English just to spite them.
Who's on board? I want them to order Fish and Chips, and gleefully watch as they scream in horror at the sight of actual chips! :twisted:
If others think it's improper to eat as I eat, it is others who have matter and not I.I have heard there is a reason that a diner is supposed to cut and eat one piece at a time, when eating a steak: The reason is that if one cuts the whole of the steak into pieces, it gets colder faster.
However, I don't think this reason means one is absolutely forced, or either forced at all, to cut one piece at a time. I didn't think about that the food gets colder when I cut my food into pieces and ate it with only the fork, and I did not either dislike the food just because it got colder. Just because it gets colder, it needn't get worse taste.
If its taste isn't worsening, there is no difference between eating it when it's kept warm and when it gets colder, what does it matter if it's warmer or colder?
They are superior cables IMOIs it national necro day in OT or something?
Bitcoin, bulk beef, steak. Hopefully the threads with $2k+ audio cables next.
Good example, but in my head I was envisioning this bad boy:
beginning of that thread reads so differently post cheez has moved to the woods thread.Good example, but in my head I was envisioning this
hotbad boy: https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/journey-to-power-cable-project-for-my-audio-system.2287190/
Google is freaking me out right now.If others think it's improper to eat as I eat, it is others who have matter and not I.
I think it's improper to say it's not proper to cut the whole food into pieces and eat it with only the fork. It is not good behaviour, and that childish claim that "it's improper to eat so because it's kid's behaviour" is not either any relevant.
If the reason that one is supposed to cut one piece at a time is "because then it does not get colder so fast", it is not reasonable to claim it's improper to cut the whole food and and eat it with just the fork "because that's kid's behaviour", because that childish claim has no relevancy.