"Simon Gardner" [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:

Lunch - Lunchtime (12h30)

12 noon in France 1pm in the UK and 2pm in Spain.

Depending on the time of year that's true - it is also about midnight in New
Zealand.

I suppose that the moral of the story is not to eat a Franch or Spanish
lunch in England. Contrariwise don't insist on lunchtime being 12h00 GMT
when you are visiting Auckland.

Mind you, I didn't specify that times were all to be in GMT, rather than
local time - I doubt it would work anyway.

In Spain, lunch starts at arount 13h30 and doesn't stop until 16h30 - if you
are with hard-working chaps who rush back to the office after a short lunch
break. So, if you are looking forward to your afternoon tea in Spain you do
have something of a problem - I suppose that, since they don't have supper
until about 22h30, you could fit in afternoon tea at about six.

On the other hand, if you mean that lunchtime is at those times in the
respective countries [a comma between France and 1 would have decided me on
that interpretation], then that seems a little late for the UK. Of course,
if you are off to the pub for lunch and want to be able to sit down then it
is wise to have your lunch a little earlier than everybody else, which might
be why I have always seen it as 12h30, or even 12h24 {to beat the 12h30
crowd}. The French probably need lunch by noon since the morning armagnac on
the way to work and the mid-morning beer will have worn off by then.


--
"Wherever tyranny has ruled, it has been with this insidious claim that the
status quo must not be questioned," - Bantu Holomisa

Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:

(You didn't include TV dinner I see).

I don't have plebvision so I shall never be in a position of having
dinner anywhere near one.

Now, why I am not surprised by that?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 23/09/2003

"Reid©" wrote in message
...
Following up to Peter H.M. Brooks


Which, of course, means that the value of going to university is vastly
reduced and they have to have silly subjects like 'X-studies' to give the
thickos something to do there.

"Media studies", a friends son naively took it and now works in a
call centre.

Exactly, though there is a whole tribe of non-academic utter wibble called
something-studies (women's I think was the one that started the rot).


I'd hope not! A well made curried sauce can go quite well with a baked
potato or, even better, as the filling of an omelette, though.

curry omelette, never done that.

I'm delighted to have introduced the idea to you - they are really quite
superbe.

Make the omelette the normal way, with plenty of good cheese, garlic and a
hint of chillie (around three should do - though a teaspoon of West Indian
Hot Pepper Sauce can be a substitute) - note that this is not one of the
flat tasteless things sometimes claimed to be omelettes, but the pukka thing
[all ingredients whisked well with a fork, omelette pan {rounded, smooth
inside (never 'non-stick'), made from heavy cast iron} well oiled with extra
virgin olive oil heated to the smoke point, everything chucked in at once
then quickly folded over until all no longer runny so that a thick airy
delight is produced] - then, just as the omelette is browning slightly on
the bottom, put as much of yesterday's Chicken Madras, Lamb Bengalore Phal
meat or better over the whole omelette as it will hold, fold it over, wait
until almost black on the bottom then serve. If anybody claims to be hung
over after that they are either lying or still ****ed from the night before.


--
"Wherever tyranny has ruled, it has been with this insidious claim that the
status quo must not be questioned," - Bantu Holomisa

"MC_Emily" wrote in message
...
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:

(You didn't include TV dinner I see).

I don't have plebvision so I shall never be in a position of having
dinner anywhere near one.

Now, why I am not surprised by that?

Presumably because you know that no pukka people have plebvisions.


--
'They.. sucked the Tobacco smoak in greedily, swallow it down with the
Water. For which reason..generally at..the first Pipe in the Morning, they
fall down drunk and insensible.' - 1698 A. Brand 'Embark Muscovy to China'

"Joanna Prescott" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2003 12:44:46 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
wrote:


When is the pukka time to eat? My understanding is as follows, but I
will welcome any corrections or suggestions particularly those
with references.

Chota Hazri - Five Thirty (05h30)
Breakfast - Seven (07h00)
Elevenses - Eleven (11h00)
Lunch - Lunchtime (12h30)
Afternoon Tea - Teatime (15h30)
Dinner - Seven (19h00)
Supper - Ten Thirty (22h30)
Midnight Snack - Midnight (24h00)
Midnight Feast - To Midnight (23h30 - 00h30)

There are other snack times possible, but they don't have proper names.

Tiffin covers a snack at any time the tummy feels the need.

Ah, thank you, Joanna, tiffin, yes, another important repast that I
overlooked! Tiffin is, properly, a light lunch - to be distinguished from
the normal one. So you could imagine a day where an inadequate brunch was
followed by a tiffin.

Personally I don't find it pukka to be awake at 5.30 am. Unless one
has not yet retired, or has a flight to catch.
I'd also place lunch at 1 pm and afternoon tea at 4 pm. But this might
differ in the colonies.

I think that the heat moves things out a bit at mid-day and the cool of the
evening moves them back a little. We have, maybe elsewhere, discussed the
wisdom of arranging a pub lunch to start at about 12:24, to ensure obtaining
a seat.

You've omitted cocktails, which I'd place at 6.30 or 7 pm, moving
dinner a little later.

Yes, this is what had me confused about dinner invitations being made for
8h00 for 8h30 - you only need a couple of sherries and dinner is very late
indeed. Far better for dinner invitations to specify 6h30 for 07h00 where it
is understood that the first hour or so involves Whisky Sours, Obtuse
Dinasour's, Champagne Cocktails, Soire de Gala's or, for the very, very
lucky, Brompton Cocktails. Much more civilised.

In a suitable location there might be beach barbecue which could be at
dawn - making use of the catch of the day, or could be in place of
dinner and supper.

Dawn takes a bit of arranging - particularly if you aren't that keen on
05h30 starts! Afternoon beach barbecues are certainly a very good thing -
I'd recommend against holding them (as I did for several weeks) in a coconut
plantation, on the beach since, while sharks kill 10 people a year, 100
people a year are killed by falling coconuts.


--
Judges are known for making extreme antediluvian remarks from time to time,
their being dressed as Ark stevedores only encourages this anachronistic
playing to the gallery.- recommendations on judical attire

Just 5.5 cents from the states.

This of course is not quite your pukka, which is a fairly unknown term
here. When one reads the text below, one can see how terms regarding
meals can change over time.

When I was young, I knew the meals simply as breakfast, lunch and dinner
or, breakfast dinner and supper. I never knew why when the terms dinner
and supper were often substituted for lunch and dinner. There's
apparently a long history.

A nice write up is offered on this URL: http://tinyurl.com/pblh
AKA -- http://www.shasta.com/suesgoodco/new...aq/qsupper.htm

This is a "Civilian Reenactor's" web site. Referring to the civilian
contingent of reenactor's of the not so civil American Civil War.

----Larry Autry
=======================


Fannie is quoted here from the referenced site:
a big snip
[begin quote]
"Working class folks contented themselves with three main meals a day.
Breakfast, Supper & Dinner.

Breakfast was always the morning meal.

Dinner was the largest meal of the day and Supper was considered a
lighter meal (usually cold meats or leftovers). But here comes the area
where much confusion arises: Depending on the circumstance of the
diners, Dinner was eaten as the mid-day meal OR as the evening meal.
Supper & Dinner were interchangeable.

Here is the qualifier:
In households with a cook or servant, Dinner was usually the evening
meal, and was enjoyed at the end of the day. The householders considered
it the duty of the cook to keep the fires burning, the stove going, and
to prepare three hot meals a day. Supper, the lighter meal, was usually
eaten in the afternoon.

In households where the wife cooked, Dinner was often eaten in the middle
of the day, and Supper was the evening meal. The reason for this
practice was practicality.

It took alot of effort and skill to keep a fireplace or cook stove heated
with a nice, even heat for cooking. The housewife got the stove going to
prepare breakfast ,which was usually quite a substantial meal to keep the
menfolk working all day. Since the stove was already hot, she began to
cook dinner as soon as breakfast was done. (There were no instant foods,
and preparation usually included hours of slow cooking). This allowed
her to serve the big meal at mid-day, at which time she could let the
stove go out, escape the environs of the hot stove during the heat of the
day, and get some serious work done. She then served bread and cold
meats or leftovers for supper, any foods that did not need extensive
cooking.

This same practicality serves us at encampments. After breakfast is
done, we begin to cook dinner. The fire is already started, we have a
nice bed of coals, and it is much easier to keep this heat source going
than to start another fire in the afternoon. Dinner is served as the mid
day meal, and we escape having to work over the fire during the hottest
part of the day. We have our Supper later in the day, usually sandwiches
or cheese and fruit, which does not require cooking.

Also, this kept us hovering over our pots of food during public hours, as
they love to see us tending the fire and lifting the pot lids to examine
the delicacies cooking therein. (We are now so jaded on cooking that
after breakfast, we let the fire go out and have two suppers and no
dinner. Got lazy in our old age, I suppose)

The source for the above information is a good book which covers this
concept well:
The American Heritage Cookbook and Illustrated History of American Eating
& Drinking
by the Editors of American Heritage Magazine
Pub 1964 by the American Heritage Publishing Co, Inc."
[end quote]


--
Larry Autry
Manchester, MO USA
t
If you can spell Earth and net, you can email me.

"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote in
:


"Javi" wrote in message
...
The carbon unit using the name Peter H.M. Brooks in
gave utterance as follows:

"Simon Gardner" [dot]co[dot]uk wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:

Lunch - Lunchtime (12h30)

12 noon in France 1pm in the UK and 2pm in Spain.

[snip]

In Spain, lunch starts at arount 13h30 and doesn't stop until 16h30
-

Not usually so soon. Rather, at around 14:30-15h .

My memory is probably faulty - that means it must end at about 17h00,
or later. When I was there the chaps I was working with were deeply
annoyed by the Europeanisation, as they saw it, of Spanish culture
that removed the traditional siesta from the daily routine. They
considered a three and a half to four hour lunch break a pitiful
substitute for a pukka siesta.

I would go for the siesta option any time.


I rather like siestas myself, but recent research suggests that they
are bad for the heart - the greatest danger to the heart is getting
out of bed in the morning, particularly on Monday mornings (when most
heart attacks happen) so, if you have a life where you get out of bed
twice a day you are putting a lot more strain on the ticker.

Depends on how suddenly you make it happen probably.

--
Adrian

"Adrian Tupper" wrote in message
...
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote in
:

Not usually so soon. Rather, at around 14:30-15h .

My memory is probably faulty - that means it must end at about 17h00,
or later. When I was there the chaps I was working with were deeply
annoyed by the Europeanisation, as they saw it, of Spanish culture
that removed the traditional siesta from the daily routine. They
considered a three and a half to four hour lunch break a pitiful
substitute for a pukka siesta.

I would go for the siesta option any time.

In warm climes it is the only thing that makes sense at that time of day -
even with air-conditioning.


I rather like siestas myself, but recent research suggests that they
are bad for the heart - the greatest danger to the heart is getting
out of bed in the morning, particularly on Monday mornings (when most
heart attacks happen) so, if you have a life where you get out of bed
twice a day you are putting a lot more strain on the ticker.

Depends on how suddenly you make it happen probably.

Maybe. The study showed that siestas tended to reduce life expectency. I
suppose that, if enough thought were put to the matter, with hydraulic beds
that gently lever you into a vertical position over the final ten minutes of
your kip this might be addressed that way. It seems that we haven't evolved
for long siestaring - it makes sense, even with the Aquatic Ape theory a
siestaring pre-hominoid would present a very easy snack for a crocodile or
shark [though sharks, strangely, don't seem to like the taste of people
much].


--
"The highest realms of thought
are impossible to reach
without first attaining
an understanding of compassion."

SOCRATES

The carbon unit using the name Peter H.M. Brooks in
gave utterance as follows:

Maybe. The study showed that siestas tended to reduce life
expectency.

Do not believe everything you read. The fact is that life expectAncy in
Spain is among the highest in the world; I cannot remember exactly, but I'd
say that it ranks inmediatly below Japan for women and not far for men.

I suppose that, if enough thought were put to the matter,
with hydraulic beds that gently lever you into a vertical position
over the final ten minutes of your kip this might be addressed that
way. It seems that we haven't evolved for long siestaring

We? Who is "we"? We have a long tradition of siesting, and reaching eighty
something years old is not rare in my family. Maybe I'm of a different
species: homo siestans.

Now, seriously, sleeping for a long time (more than an hour) in the
afternoon seems to be not good, but a short siesta (around half an hour) is
a great thing.

--�
Saludos cordiales

Javi

Conjunction of an irregular verb:

I am firm.
You are obstinate.
He is a pig-headed fool.

"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote in
:


"Adrian Tupper" wrote in message
...
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote in
:

Not usually so soon. Rather, at around 14:30-15h .

My memory is probably faulty - that means it must end at about
17h00, or later. When I was there the chaps I was working with were
deeply annoyed by the Europeanisation, as they saw it, of Spanish
culture that removed the traditional siesta from the daily routine.
They considered a three and a half to four hour lunch break a
pitiful substitute for a pukka siesta.

I would go for the siesta option any time.

In warm climes it is the only thing that makes sense at that time of
day - even with air-conditioning.


I rather like siestas myself, but recent research suggests that
they are bad for the heart - the greatest danger to the heart is
getting out of bed in the morning, particularly on Monday mornings
(when most heart attacks happen) so, if you have a life where you
get out of bed twice a day you are putting a lot more strain on the
ticker.

Depends on how suddenly you make it happen probably.

Maybe. The study showed that siestas tended to reduce life expectency.

How on earth can they measure that?

I suppose that, if enough thought were put to the matter, with
hydraulic beds that gently lever you into a vertical position over the
final ten minutes of your kip this might be addressed that way.

No it's the difference between leaping out of bed when the alarm goes
off and pausing for a minute or two after waking up naturally.

It
seems that we haven't evolved for long siestaring - it makes sense,
even with the Aquatic Ape theory a siestaring pre-hominoid would
present a very easy snack for a crocodile or shark [though sharks,
strangely, don't seem to like the taste of people much].

Back on topic at last!

--
Adrian

"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote in message
...

When is the pukka time to eat? My understanding is as follows, but I
will welcome any corrections or suggestions particularly those
with references.

Chota Hazri - Five Thirty (05h30)
Breakfast - Seven (07h00)
Elevenses - Eleven (11h00)
Lunch - Lunchtime (12h30)
Afternoon Tea - Teatime (15h30)
Dinner - Seven (19h00)
Supper - Ten Thirty (22h30)
Midnight Snack - Midnight (24h00)
Midnight Feast - To Midnight (23h30 - 00h30)

There are other snack times possible, but they don't have proper names.

High Tea? Definitely different from Afternoon Tea. 17.30 rings a bell
(possibly literally).
m.

"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote in message
...

Yes, this is what had me confused about dinner invitations being made for
8h00 for 8h30 - you only need a couple of sherries and dinner is very late
indeed. Far better for dinner invitations to specify 6h30 for 07h00 where
it
is understood that the first hour or so involves Whisky Sours, Obtuse
Dinasour's, Champagne Cocktails, Soire de Gala's or, for the very, very
lucky, Brompton Cocktails. Much more civilised.

I have always considered 8.00 for 8.30 to mean aperitifs served at 8.00,
dinner served at 8.30.
Is this not the case?
m.

"Adrian Tupper" wrote in message
...
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote in
:

Depends on how suddenly you make it happen probably.

Maybe. The study showed that siestas tended to reduce life expectency.

How on earth can they measure that?

You'd have to look up the studies. They examined people who did and didn't
have siestas and controlled for other variables.

I suppose that, if enough thought were put to the matter, with
hydraulic beds that gently lever you into a vertical position over the
final ten minutes of your kip this might be addressed that way.

No it's the difference between leaping out of bed when the alarm goes
off and pausing for a minute or two after waking up naturally.

I'm not certain of that, you might be right, but the heart might find the
standing up from lying down bit the problem. More research needed.

It
seems that we haven't evolved for long siestaring - it makes sense,
even with the Aquatic Ape theory a siestaring pre-hominoid would
present a very easy snack for a crocodile or shark [though sharks,
strangely, don't seem to like the taste of people much].

Back on topic at last!

Sometimes it happens.


--
Only very sophisticated organisms like philosophers fail to be naive
realists! - David H.M. Brooks How to Solve the Hard Problem: A Predictable
Inexplicability 1999

"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:

"Reid©" wrote in message

curry omelette, never done that.

I'm delighted to have introduced the idea to you - they are really quite
superbe.

Make the omelette the normal way, with plenty of good cheese, garlic and a
hint of chillie (around three should do

What is this new meaning of the word "hint" of which I have never heard?
I've never heard of putting chilli or garlic in an omelette at all.

- though a teaspoon of West Indian
Hot Pepper Sauce can be a substitute)

"Dave's Insanity" is an example what you are referring to presumably.
The stuff that makes Tabasco taste bland. Or possibly my Jamaican ex
colleague Sam's mother's home made stuff, which was kept reverentially
in a locked cupboard in our office in New Jersey and offered to
unsuspecting visitors (not that I ever saw anyone accept it, when the
lid was removed you could smell it on the other side of the office - not
an unpleasant smell, there was zero chance of this stuff's ever going
off - but enough to make you realise that you would be risking life and
limb by trying a teaspoonful).

- note that this is not one of the
flat tasteless things sometimes claimed to be omelettes, but the pukka thing
[all ingredients whisked well with a fork, omelette pan {rounded, smooth
inside (never 'non-stick'), made from heavy cast iron} well oiled with extra
virgin olive oil heated to the smoke point, everything chucked in at once
then quickly folded over until all no longer runny so that a thick airy
delight is produced] - then, just as the omelette is browning slightly on
the bottom, put as much of yesterday's Chicken Madras, Lamb Bengalore Phal
meat or better over the whole omelette as it will hold, fold it over, wait
until almost black on the bottom then serve. If anybody claims to be hung
over after that they are either lying or still ****ed from the night before.

A rather strange combination of the delicate art of cooking an omelette
and death by chilli overdose IMO I'd use butter not olive oil too.
Olive oil burns at a rather low temperature.

I'll try this next time I have some left over curry and a hangover. Your
recipe has been duly printed off and parked at the side of my fridge.

How does it compare to whole teaspoonsful of neat mustard or wasabi?

PS did you know about the French aristocrat who got guilloutined because
of his ignorance of omelette making? He escaped the mayhem in Paris and
repaired to a country inn. He ordered an omelette and the innkeeper
asked how many eggs he wanted. He answered "12", so the innkeeper
realised that he must never have cooked one himself and so must be an
aristocrat and shopped him.

Regards, Ian

Adrian Tupper wrote:
No it's the difference between leaping out of bed when the alarm goes
off and pausing for a minute or two after waking up naturally.

What a strange life style. I only have an alarm clock so that I can keep
my eyes closed till the last minute. I am always awake beforehand.
Perhaps, if I were to attempt getting up at an odd time (currently, I go
for 5.30 am), then your method might be appropriate, although I have
never had problems with waking at 2, 3 or 4 am when required. My body
clock tells me to wake up.

--
Rob Bannister