The Adverse Effects of Pork

Hallan · Post by **Hallan** » Fri May 05, 2006 3:01 pm

*applauds*

'Nuff said.

Hallan

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri May 05, 2006 5:03 pm

Hee hee hee!

Love that Van Gogh effect in the background, too.

Squeaky Bunny · Post by **Squeaky Bunny** » Fri May 05, 2006 5:28 pm

rangers wrote:Hee hee hee!

Love that Van Gogh effect in the background, too.

*giggles and rolls around helplessly* 'ear 'ear!

The JAM · Post by **The JAM** » Fri May 05, 2006 6:12 pm

He seems to be speaking better English, too.

Calbeck · Post by **Calbeck** » Fri May 05, 2006 7:19 pm

*falls over laughing and struggling to breathe*

Mikhail Dragoslav · Post by **Mikhail Dragoslav** » Fri May 05, 2006 8:22 pm

What am I doing there people ask? Well I knew I should've taken a left turn at Albuquerque....

Seriously, I'm amused that so many people find it weird that I appear in both comics. I'm not the first guy to appear in both Goblin Hollow (nee Under the Lemon Tree) and Nip and Tuck.

Please observe Exhibit A:

http://utlt.comicgenesis.com/d/20020215.html
http://nipandtuck.comicgenesis.com/d/20020223.html

For that matter, I know of a guy who appeared in two completely unrelated comics by different artists!

Exhibit B:

http://www.suburbanjungle.com/d/20010903.html
http://utlt.comicgenesis.com/d/20021208.html

Mikhail Dragoslav · Post by **Mikhail Dragoslav** » Fri May 05, 2006 9:55 pm

BoKiana wrote:Wait!! Wait wait wait wait!

Now Misha has visited Goblin Hollow?

That just ain't right!

With that up, Misha's visited more comics than Bo.

I can't let that happen. I'll have to find a way to arrange a vacation with Bo and Rachel.

But with me jobless, I can't do that.

Donations?

Well if it helps any, you've been in more comic strips than I have you've had two story arcs in Nip and Tuck to my one and a pair of single shot cameos. Even with this cameo in Goblin Hollow you still have more strips than I do.

TMLutas · Post by **TMLutas** » Fri May 05, 2006 10:59 pm

Namrepus221 wrote:You know, I've always kinda wondered what one would have to do to 'atone' for eating pork in Judaism.

The only jewish friend I ever had was a "Reform" which ment he didn't have to follow "kosher" dietary laws of regular Judaism as I understand it. He kinda brought it up one day when I asked him why he was eating a cheeseburger and explained how a "reform" is different in regards to the dietary laws.

Still it's a pretty funny comic RH.

Apparently some take the whole pork thing very seriously. As near as I can tell, Yom Kippur is for clearing the slate with God.

UncleMonty · Post by **UncleMonty** » Sat May 06, 2006 12:24 am

While I am not of the Jewish faith myself, I'd suspect that God has a certain leniency for anyone tricked into eating pork all unaware...

But Zoot deserved what he got, with extra barbeque sauce and a pickle!!!

Squeaky Bunny · Post by **Squeaky Bunny** » Sat May 06, 2006 4:30 am

UncleMonty wrote:While I am not of the Jewish faith myself, I'd suspect that God has a certain leniency for anyone tricked into eating pork all unaware...

But Zoot deserved what he got, with extra barbeque sauce and a pickle!!!

True, true. Zoot's joke was below parve, but what Misha did wasn't exactly kosher either.

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Sat May 06, 2006 4:42 am

The "burger with cheese" thing, btw, is a rather gratuitous misinterpretation of the dietary law that they were not to eat the flesh of a kid "seethed (boiled) in its mother's milk." An example of people replacing God's laws with Man's tradition.

The Pharisees were exceptionally bad about that sort of thing. They would take simple laws-- "no working on the sabbath"-- and proclaim that you were not permitted to even bind or dress a wound on the sabbath, because the dressing would be "working" at healing the wound. Even something as simple as shucking grain to eat by hand was "preparing a meal"...... miles and miles of nonsense like that.

Contrariwise, the law also stated you were not to travel more than a mile on the sabbath... so they would wear extra articles of clothing. When they reached the one mile mark they would drop an article of clothing. They proclaimed that meant they were still within a mile of their lands and possessions, so therefore they could keep going..... and then they'd walk another mile, and drop another article of clothing. They had entire books of nonsense like THAT, as well.

This sort of skewed legalism was why shepherds were looked down upon. A sheep doesn't care what day of the week it is. It needs to be grazed, watered, and watched over seven days a week. Shepherds naturally found themselves working all hours and all days.... which made them "sinners" in the eyes of the Pharisees.

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Sat May 06, 2006 7:54 am

TMLutas wrote:
Namrepus221 wrote:You know, I've always kinda wondered what one would have to do to 'atone' for eating pork in Judaism.

The only jewish friend I ever had was a "Reform" which ment he didn't have to follow "kosher" dietary laws of regular Judaism as I understand it. He kinda brought it up one day when I asked him why he was eating a cheeseburger and explained how a "reform" is different in regards to the dietary laws.

Still it's a pretty funny comic RH.
Apparently some take the whole pork thing very seriously. As near as I can tell, Yom Kippur is for clearing the slate with God.

That's about right, from what I read. Yom Kippur is (as one site puts it) a "catch-all": The sins of the community are forgiven, all at once. (About the only sins to rate their own section in the liturgy are sins of lying; "evil tongue".)

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Sat May 06, 2006 8:11 am

RHJunior wrote:The "burger with cheese" thing, btw, is a rather gratuitous misinterpretation of the dietary law that they were not to eat the flesh of a kid "seethed (boiled) in its mother's milk." An example of people replacing God's laws with Man's tradition.

As Christians, we're exempt as of the New Testament: However, the "burger with cheese" thing is a real Kosher dietary law, Ralph, all the way back to the Oral Torah. Kosher law states that meat and dairy are not to be served in the same dish, and you can't very well claim that the melting cheese doesn't "seethe" into the burger, can you? (The rabbis did extend the ruling to include eating dairy with poultry, however.)

Depending on how strictly they observe kashrut (kosher), some Jewish families even use seperate utensils for meat and dairy courses.

Technically, however, it's possible to have a Kosher cheeseburger; all you have to do is use cheese that isn't cheese, or meat that isn't meat. Make either product out of soybeans, and you've reached Pareve (neutral) status, as with the first kosher Subway restaurant.

After all, soy is neither fleishik or milchik...

Yours with a fondness for latkes, (and a good kosher reuben),

The wolfish,

Wanderer

Namrepus221 · Post by **Namrepus221** » Sat May 06, 2006 9:10 am

Wanderwolf wrote:
RHJunior wrote:The "burger with cheese" thing, btw, is a rather gratuitous misinterpretation of the dietary law that they were not to eat the flesh of a kid "seethed (boiled) in its mother's milk." An example of people replacing God's laws with Man's tradition.
As Christians, we're exempt as of the New Testament: However, the "burger with cheese" thing is a real Kosher dietary law, Ralph, all the way back to the Oral Torah. Kosher law states that meat and dairy are not to be served in the same dish, and you can't very well claim that the melting cheese doesn't "seethe" into the burger, can you? (The rabbis did extend the ruling to include eating dairy with poultry, however.)

Depending on how strictly they observe kashrut (kosher), some Jewish families even use seperate utensils for meat and dairy courses.

Technically, however, it's possible to have a Kosher cheeseburger; all you have to do is use cheese that isn't cheese, or meat that isn't meat. Make either product out of soybeans, and you've reached Pareve (neutral) status, as with the first kosher Subway restaurant.

After all, soy is neither fleishik or milchik...

Yours with a fondness for latkes, (and a good kosher reuben),

The wolfish,

Wanderer

I remember seeing something on Food Network (I love the original Iron Chef and Alton Brown ok!) that kosher laws mean that meat and dairy cannot even be in the same kitchen space. The restaruant that was shown had a line literally drawn down half of it. Meat dishes were prepared on one side, dairy on the other (pastries and such using cream cheese), The line ment that neither dish was allowed to cross and "contaminate" the other dishes.

I can't remember much though because it's been a good few months since I've seen the program it was on ("Food finds", I just can't remember WHICH one it was because of the large episode lists)

BoKiana · Post by **BoKiana** » Sat May 06, 2006 9:46 am

Wanderwolf wrote:Kosher law states that meat and dairy are not to be served in the same dish

Wait, You gotta admit that both Squeezy-cheeze (the guck that comes out of a spray can) and Velvietta cheeze isn't dairy. . . . I'm not sure it's cheese at that.

Or food.

o.O;

Wanderwolf · Post by **Wanderwolf** » Sat May 06, 2006 9:53 am

BoKiana wrote:
Wanderwolf wrote:Kosher law states that meat and dairy are not to be served in the same dish
Wait, You gotta admit that both Squeezy-cheeze (the guck that comes out of a spray can) and Velvietta cheeze isn't dairy. . . . I'm not sure it's cheese at that.

Or food.

o.O;

<chuckle> No argument, Bo.:> But it does have milk, so it's milchik.

The rule is the Rule of Contamination; therefore, a little taints the whole, and even the small amount of milk in Velveeta counts as dairy.

I'm a wolf, though... we're not picky.:9 I love spray cheese and Velveeta.

Yours with a broad palate,

The food-loving,

Wanderer

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sat May 06, 2006 1:59 pm

That's also why you use a separate set of dishes at Passover, so you're eating off plates that haven't touched chametz.

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Sat May 06, 2006 4:26 pm

Wanderwolf wrote:
RHJunior wrote:The "burger with cheese" thing, btw, is a rather gratuitous misinterpretation of the dietary law that they were not to eat the flesh of a kid "seethed (boiled) in its mother's milk." An example of people replacing God's laws with Man's tradition.
However, the "burger with cheese" thing is a real Kosher dietary law, Ralph, all the way back to the Oral Torah. (snip)

Yours with a fondness for latkes, (and a good kosher reuben),

The wolfish,

Wanderer

I am aware that it's a long held tradition, Wanderer. However, Man's Tradition is not God's Law... no matter how old it is, how long it's been held or what traditions have been built up around it.

I am also aware of what scripture it is BASED on, and that the cheese-and-meat prohibition is an incorrect exaggerated interpretation of a very simple, very plain dietary law.

And no, melting cheese into a patty of meat does not qualify as "seething." Again, repeated,it was very specific that the flesh of a kid or calf was not to be seethed in <I>it's mother's milk.</i> That was IT. You were not to go out, slaughter a baby animal, bring it in, and cook it in a boiling pot of its mother's milk. End of prohibition. Period, return carriage, end of paragraph. All other alterations, variations, addendums and sub-paragraphs not authorized by the original Author.

Just because the Jews do it doesn't make it part of the original Mosaic Law.

The JAM · Post by **The JAM** » Sat May 06, 2006 4:26 pm

I just wonder: do lactose and flesh proteins combine forming toxic substances when cooked together?

RHJunior · Post by **RHJunior** » Sat May 06, 2006 5:02 pm

My suspicion is that it had to do with the mother's hormones in the milk altering the meat in some fashion...

Though then again it just could have been abolished because it was rather symbolically sick. Kill a new mother's baby, then boil it in the milk meant to nourish it? A bit excessively gruesome, that.

Allow me to add in passing that the Jewish people are more than welcome to keep whatever dietary laws or codes they wish. That is not my contention; my contention was the alleged source of the restrictions.