Question Answered



One man. Two boys. Twelve kids.

Related Post Roulette

89 Responses

  1. Avatar Road Scholar says:

    So what was their answer?Report

    • Avatar Glyph says:

      Inconclusive. Either way, though, the men on the panel felt the women on the panel should make and serve them, just in case they ARE sandwiches.Report

      • Avatar Road Scholar says:

        And bring me a beer willya, Edith?!!Report

      • Avatar Kazzy says:

        I assume it was mostly:
        A) Criticism of the Chicago dog because something-something Obama
        B) Phallus jokes aimed at the female co-hosts.Report

      • Avatar j r says:

        The Independents (2013–present) is an American television libertarian talk show on Fox Business. It is broadcast on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. The hosts of the show are Lisa Kennedy Montgomery, America’s Future Foundation’s Kmele Foster, and Reason magazine’s Matt Welch.

        Not really sure the all-purpose Fox-bashing works in this case.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird says:

        Given that Libertarians are just Republicans who support gay marriage, support ending the war on drugs, think abortion should remain legal, and want to limit government power, what’s the problem with lumping them in with the typical Fox viewer?Report

      • Avatar Glyph says:

        Aw, let me have my cheap jokes. They’re all I’ve got!Report

      • Avatar j r says:

        Actually, it looks like one of the guests on the show is The Federalist‘s Mollie Hemingway, so maybe all these jokes are spot on.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy says:


        That’s fair, but as soon as a “news” show convenes a panel to discuss the sandwichiness of a hot dog, you sacrifice a great deal of credibility.Report

      • Avatar Kolohe says:

        @kazzy isn’t it making a point about government regulation, which is perfectly valid as a subject for a cable business news channel (of whatever persuasion)?Report

      • Avatar j r says:


        That is a bit of an uncharitable take. Especially, considering that this is just a still frame and you have no sense of how much time they spent talking about this and in what context.

        And you do realize that this is a talk show hosted by former MTV veejay, Kennedy?Report

      • Avatar Kazzy says:

        @kolohe and @j-r are right in that this still frame is of little material worth in evaluating the show or channel in question. I would have similarly skewered CNN, MSNBC, or any other supposedly legitimate show based on the screen shot.

        And if, as Kolohe suspects, this was part of a real discussion on vaguaries in government regulation, it seems a fair topic of conversation. The main interest to me was that we previously discussed this very topic.Report

      • Avatar Michelle says:

        That’s fair, but as soon as a “news” show convenes a panel to discuss the sandwichiness of a hot dog, you sacrifice a great deal of credibility.

        You say that like Fox News had any credibility to sacrifice in the first place.Report

  2. Avatar Michael Drew says:

    I don’t think I weighed in before, so here goes:

    Are cold cuts on a hot dog bun a sandwich? I’d say no, they’re cold cuts on a hot dog bun. Cold cuts on a somewhat hot-dog-bun-looking sandwich roll (Dagwood roll, etc.), or between two pieces of sliced bread are a sandwich.

    Likewise, a hot dog on a hot dog bun is a hot dog on a hot dog bun, not a sandwich. A hot dog by itself certainly isn’t a sandwich (just like cold cuts by themselves aren’t).

    So what about a hot dog on a sandwich roll or between two pieces of sliced bread? I guess my answer would be if it’s so damn important to you, fine, it can be a sandwich. Is it really that important to you, though?Report

    • Avatar Burt Likko says:

      Is a New England lobster roll a sandwich? Obviously not. It’s a lobster roll.

      What’s the difference between a New England lobster roll and a hot dog? The bun is superficially different, and they’re dressed differently,* but fundamentally, the difference is the kind of protein that goes in to the bread.

      If instead of loose lobster meat, we hypotheticate a tube of packed lobster meat — a “lobster dog,” if you will, or some sort of shellfish sausage — it’s perhaps not exactly a New England lobster roll anymore, become now a strange hybrid of a hot dog and a lobster roll. But there’s one thing that we can be damn sure it ain’t and that’s a hoagie.**

      We haven’t really moved any closer to sandwichness here because the protein is not yet placed between two pieces of … starch, preferably bread. The hot dog, the lobster roll, the brat on a bun — the protein is within a bread, but not between breads. It’s the betweenness of the protein, wherein we find the essence of sandwichness.

      Hot dogs are good. I like hot dogs. I like lots of sausages in hand-held bread rolls or buns. But they are not sandwiches and I don’t pretend that they are sandwiches and you ought not pretend they are sandwiches either for they are not.

      * Chicagoans got this part of it exactly right: there is no g-d ketchup on the dog! Mustard, yeah. (Especially on a brat, which is like a dog except in the ways it isn’t.) I don’t care for pickle relish but it’s an acceptable condiment too. Onions. Kraut. And sport peppers, whatever the fish a “sport pepper” is because my supermarket doesn’t have any “sport peppers” available but then again my supermarket isn’t in Chicago. And chili and cheese, now you’re talking! Well, I’ve digressed enough, point being, none of these are sandwiches.

      ** Or a hero, or a sub, or a torpedo, or a grinder, etc. etc. etc.Report

      • Avatar Michael Drew says:

        I mean, I think I meant to express something closer to this view than I think you understood me to.

        Ultimately, though, if someone wants to put a hot dog between two slices of Wonderbread and insist it’s a hot dog sandwich, I don’t know that I can tell them they’re clearly wrong. X between two pieces of sandwich bread is pretty much an X sandwich for edible X, I think.

        However, it should be said that while a hot dog on a hot dog bun is plausibly (really, quite normally) called “a hot dog”; a hot dog between two slices of Wonderbread is, I think, not rightly called “a hot dog,” but rather “a hot dog between two slices of Wonderbread,” and, plausibly, “a hot dog sandwich” (if someone really wants to). So in that sense, right, I think we agree, a hot dog, and indeed just about anything correctly called “a hot dog,” is not a sandwich.Report

      • Avatar Glyph says:

        Burt, I love you, but you have been, are, and remain almost painfully wrong on this topic. By continuing to argue for silly and largely-arbitrary limitations on sandwich definition (a lobster roll or a hoagie/hero isn’t a sandwich? What are you smoking?) you miss the entire essence of sandwichness – its very enveloping inclusiveness.

      • Avatar Burt Likko says:

        Did I say a hoagie isn’t a sandwich? No, I did not. A hoagie very clearly is a sandwich.

        As for the Guardian, you’re looking to a British newspaper for culinary advice?Report

      • Avatar Murali says:


        I’ve noticed a pattern. He also arbitrarily limits the definition of a pizza, going as far as agreeing with Scalia. But, no matter what Likko says, a deep dish pizza is pizza.* And a hot dog bun is a kind of bread. Since burgers are a type of sandwich and a cheese and patty between two pieces of flat bread is a type of sandwich, so is a hot dog between two halves of a hot-dog bun. Sandwich is a wide term that encompasses many things. If I were to put a piece of meat between two halves of a hamburger bun it would be a sandwich. If we were to elongate and narrow those pieces of bread and meat the fundamental structure and taste of the food would remain the same. The fact that you leave a hinge instead of cutting all the way through is a minor detail. Even falafel and hummus in pita pocket is a sandwich.

        *In fact, its the most awesome kind of pizza. The only thing more awesome than deep dish pizza would be deep dish pizza by the slice.Report

      • Avatar Glyph says:

        As for the Guardian, you’re looking to a British newspaper for culinary advice?

        The author, Jeb Lund, is an American; regardless of the publishing paper.

        Once again, you have missed the ‘meat’ for the ‘wrapper’. 😉Report

      • I am wholly torn on this question, though I must re-emphasize that what is served in Chicago is not pizza but rather tomato pie. It is not the thickness of the crust that alters its character, but rather the order in which the ingredients are placed. It is possible to have a thick crust pizza or a thin crust tomato pie (see, e.g., Justice Alito’s favorite restaurant, DeLorenzo’s, formerly of Trenton but now of Robbinsville, which serves only delicious, delicious thin crust tomato pies). To say that a tomato pie is a pizza because it has the same ingredients is to say that a burrito is a taco is an enchilada, which is clearly not the case.

        As for the issue at hand, I am likewise initially inclined to agree with Likko, C.J. that it is the between-ness that distinguishes a sandwich from a roll, though I do not agree that the outer substance need specifically be a bread, but may instead be any product which follows the formula of A(B-X)A and in which the “A” would be capable of being gripped by the hands while held parallel to the ground without the (B-X) being squished out the sides (the rear being a different subject). When something is between two items of another thing, we describe it as being “sandwiched,” and thus I do not believe that the nature of the exterior substance is necessarily important, except as a matter of engineering.

        In Austria, for instance, the word “hot dog” refers not to the type of meat that goes in the exterior substance, but rather to the fact that the meat (most frequently a delicious, delicious Kasekrainer, the world’s most Wunderbar form of wurstel) is placed within a tunnel cut into the center of a whole loaf of bread. I think we would all agree that this is not a sandwich, delicious as it is (and really it is the best meat in tube form/bread combo in all the world, without any doubt).

        And yet, even if we were to ignore the use of the word “hot dog” to refer to the bread itself and instead replace the Kasekrainer with an inferior American Hot Dog, we would still all agree that it was an acceptable way of eating a hot dog. Indeed, even in America, hot dogs are often not served on a bun (and the use of the word “on” to describe its relationship to a bun should alone be dispositive here), but instead are sometimes served in often disgusting but nonetheless common other forms – on a stick, or within a greasy pretzel-like substance, or even within a phyllo-like pastry.

        Were we to serve hot dogs between two flat pieces of bread, they would simply roll out, though, so ordinary sandwich form is the one way in which we absolutely cannot serve a hot dog.

        Similarly, we might also consider that we call lobster filling served on a bun a “lobster roll,” rather than a lobster sandwich, which would be a reference to lobster meat served between two slices of bread.

        And that form is critical, rather than merely a matter of aesthetics. If the product must be eaten in an enclosed form, or within the spaces of a “V,” then there is no order to how we experience the flavors involved. In a proper sandwich, the food hits the tongue in layers, but in a half-split roll, or fully enclosed starch tube, the filling hits the tongue simultaneously with additional starch.

        As for the hoagie/sub/torpedo question….properly made, such things are quite clearly sandwiches, as the bread is often wholly sliced and separated. But even if it is not sliced in that manner, but it is otherwise properly made, it will still be designed to be held parallel to the ground such that only trace amounts of starch are contained in the same layer as the filling when it reaches your tongue.Report

      • Avatar Glyph says:

        and the use of the word “on” to describe its relationship to a bun should alone be dispositive here

        A hamburger or chicken patty or pulled pork also comes “on” a bun, and there be no bread hinge there.

        we call lobster filling served on a bun a “lobster roll,” rather than a lobster sandwich

        Local or traditional nomenclature is irrelevant to actual definition. A “po’ boy” is also a “shrimp sandwich”.

        Apparently, the first thing we need to do here, is kill all the lawyers, then enjoy a nice sandwich.Report

    • Avatar James Hanley says:

      Any food item consisting of a filling largely surrounded by bread and normally eaten with the hands is a sandwich.Report

      • What about New York style pizza slices, when eaten folded over?Report

      • Avatar Glyph says:

        Is the calzone low-cal?Report

      • Avatar Kim says:

        a pizza slice might count as an openfaced sandwich…Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko says:

        What about the pizza slice, after you fold it? What about a burrito? Or a taco for that matter? Or moo goo gai pan? Or hummus (when eaten on a pita)? If I scoop up some tzatziki on a pita, have I made a tzatziki sandwich?

        Damn it, Hanley, words have meaning! This is not Nam, this is lunch. There are rules!Report

      • Avatar dragonfrog says:

        Chocolate-filled croissant, Cornish pasty?Report

      • Avatar Murali says:


        The key word is that they are pastries. No one is ever going to call a scone a sandwich no matter what you put in between. But put a slice of cheese between two halves of a bagel and you’ve got a bagel sandwich. That’s because a bagel is a bread while scones, crossoints etc are pastries.Report

      • Avatar Glyph says:

        Ordinary Times
        This is not Nam, this is lunchReport

      • Avatar Michael Cain says:

        So, going by the definitions in Wikipedia, McDonald’s Egg McMuffin is a sandwich because an English muffin is a bread, but Burger King’s Croissan’wich is not (despite the name) because a croissant is a pastry?Report

      • Avatar Michael Cain says:

        Any food item consisting of a filling largely surrounded by bread and normally eaten with the hands is a sandwich.

        IIRC, the last time this question came up, my assertion that a runza is a sandwich was roundly shouted down.Report

      • Avatar Murali says:

        But the filling should not be baked into the bread. For example, we have a red bean bun in Singapore and that is not sandwich.Report

      • Avatar Glyph says:

        Burger King’s Croissan’wich is not (despite the name)

        Presumably they dropped the ‘d’ for legal reasons, like “cheez” or “chick’n”.

        Besides, if I’d known that my sandwich tolerance was going to be used against me to attempt to bring the French into the fold, I never would have gone there. 😉Report

      • Avatar Michael Cain says:

        If the red bean bun in the picture were sliced the other way, would that transform it into a sandwich? Or is the order/method of assembly part of the definition? (I’m afraid some of the recent slice-and-dice opinions from the Roberts’ Court are affecting me.)Report

      • Avatar Murali says:


        Its the order of assembly. It only counts as a sandwich if you put in stuffing after the bread has finished baking. (Subsequent toasting, grilling or cooking of otherwise fully baked bread does not count towards disqualifying. A stuffed paratha or naan is not a sandwich since what is wrapped around the stuffing is dough which is subsequently baked. But if you were to put a bunch of other ingredients and fold the naan in hald around those ingredients it would be a sandwich.Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko says:

        Well, that’s what you get when you break away from a perfectly sensible rule, @glyph . The use of the term “surround” rather than “between” is what takes you to places where you’re contemplating ridiculous things like whether a slice of pizza or a runza or a ravioli or a taco or hummus might be considered a sandwich. These things are all good to eat, but they aren’t sandwiches.

        The red bean bun that @murali depicts above looks like it would make for a nice lunch, or part of a lunch, depending on the size of one’s appetite. (Unless the bean filling is really spicy and juicy, I think I’d want some kind of sauce or condiment there; looks like it could easily be a bit dry and bland.) But it’s not a sandwich, as our man @murali sensibly concedes.

        FWIW, I would consider a Burger King Crossan’wich a sandwich, as a croissant is a delicate bread with higher sugar content than its more savory counterparts from French baking traditions, like the famous baugette. (Baugettes make for great sandwiches, of course.) “Pastry” means some sort of a baked sweet. But the Crossan’wich is created by intentionally slicing the croissant in half and then putting an egg and meat and cheese in between. So we have the betweenness coming in to play.

        Two separate pieces of bread is how a sandwich is made. So of course a burger is a sandwich. Of course an Egg McMuffin is a sandwich. And of course a hot dog is not. The bun might fall apart and now you’ve got a messy hot dog, but the bun shouldn’t fall apart.

        As for the dictionary, mentioned both above and below, I’ve seen dictionary definitions of other words that are patently incorrect as well — famously, the American Heritage Dictionary defines “atheism” as “immorality.” So I’m not particularly confident in that particular dictionary and indeed in the precision of dictionaries in general. Dictionaries help, sometimes, but who said that this or that dictionary is authoritative, or dictionaries in general? Just because some schmoe wrote it down in a book doesn’t mean it’s right. We decide, here, what’s right. That’s what comment sections in blogs are for — the definitive and final hashing out of truth.

        Look, if you want to call a hot dog a sandwich, I can’t stop you from doing it. You can call a cat a lizard, and I can’t stop you from doing that, either. But you’re corrupting the language, changing the meaning of a term. A sandwich necessarily involves intentionally putting something between two pieces of bread, not within a single piece of bread.Report

      • Avatar Chris says:

        Are Australian meat pies sandwiches?

        What we need is a good Socratic dialogue to sort out the Idea of sandwich, and work our way outward from there.Report

      • Avatar Socrates says:

        [Drops gyro sandwich, walks off stage with arms raised to thunderous applause]Report

      • Avatar dragonfrog says:

        @murali that’s definitely a good minimum distinguishing factor – baking then filling vs. filling then baking. I agree, a chocolate-filled croissant shouldn’t be seen as a sandwich, but if you cut a regular croissant in half and spread nutella on it, it should.

        I’m still resistant to the idea that if you cut the croissant only 90% of the way through, that 10% of the cross-section that is not severed should disqualify it as a sandwich.

        Now, I don’t that often eat hot dogs or buy hot dog buns, but I seem to recall that recently the ones I’ve had are actually cut all the way through, or if not all the way then so close to all the way that it fully splits somewhere between assembling the hot dog and your second bite. Any residual bread-linkage is only useful to help ensure that you can get both halves of the bun out of the bag in one action.

        Trying to treat hot dogs with those buns as a sausage perched on notched bread would quickly result in your staring sadly at a half-eaten hot dog on the floor, with a hand full of condiments. You have no choice but to treat the thing as a sandwich according to @burt-likko ‘s definition, orienting the slices of bun horizontally and applying pressure top and bottom.

        Is this a Canadian thing? Is it failing to be a real hot dog?Report

      • Avatar Murali says:


        I agree with you about the 90% cut thing. I’m vegetarian, so I sometimes put sliced cheese between a hot dog bun. I often slice it 99% of the way through leaving a small hinge for it to open. sometimes the hinge breaks, sometimes it doesn’t. I think sandwiches should involve breads, and I’m reluctant to call crossoints bread. They are too light, fluffy and crispy.Report

      • Avatar Murali says:


        But, I’m willing to meet you half way and say that if it is a sandwich, it is a peripheral case just as if international law is actually law, it is a peripheral case.Report

      • Avatar Michael Cain says:

        Yay, Burt. In between as the defining factor. How many years of case law will it require to fully define the term? In the situation of a bun not cut all the way through, is the angle between the two sides at the join important? After all, an open-face sandwich is just a special case where the angle is 180°. Hot dogs tend to a bun angle greater than 90°, at least if it’s a decent sort of dog. Hoagies somewhat less than 90°.

        Geez, this is as bad as the Supreme Court’s use of otherwise as a supposedly precise term in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA on regulating greenhouse gas emissions earlier this year.Report

      • Avatar James Hanley says:

        The answer to all the above is “yes.”

        Damn your rules, @burt-likko! Let freedom ring!Report

      • Far from letting freedom ring, this insistence on defining terms so broadly as to be incapable of expressing any actual meaning, rather than permitting them to be called by their proper names, is downright Orwellian.

        Surely our language is sufficiently rich and varied as to allow a word other than “sandwich” to describe a food in which the filling is or must be folded into a single piece of starch!Report

      • Avatar James Hanley says:

        Brother Mark,

        a burrito is a taco is an enchilada,

        Haven’t you been to Taco Bell? It’s just the same three ingredients displayed in different ways. You’re failing to see through the veil, accepting appearances as reality, believing whatever the man tells you to believe. There’s a deeper truth, my friend, and that truth will set your heart, soul and mind free: they’re all sandwiches.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird says:

        “The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.”Report

      • Avatar Chris says:

        A taco is definitely not a sandwich. A torta is a taco with bread, and therefore a sandwich.

        Relatedly, tortas are awesome.Report

  3. Avatar Damon says:

    It’s a hot dog if it’s a food product wrapped in bread that generally conforms to a tube shape, and would be slightly erotic if a man saw a woman eating it slowly.Report

  4. Avatar Chris says:

    I had a hotdog with peanut butter and jelly (and Captain Crunch) at a local joint, once. If that’s not a sandwich…Report

    • Avatar Glyph says:

      I think you misspelled ‘culinary nightmare’. That’s some Lovecraftian wrongness happening there. I realize you live in Austin, but are there any restaurants you can patronize that are not staffed by 15-year-old marijuana enthusiasts?

      (My little brother used to make peanut butter and bologna sandwiches. But he was like seven).Report

      • Avatar Chris says:

        The place has a bunch of, uh, creatively topped dogs, e.g., the “Hair of the Dog,” with a bacon-wrapped dog, chili cheese, fried egg, and Tabasco (with that one you can get a beer for a buck). Most of the dogs are pretty good, and since I live down the street, I eat there often enough to know most of the employees. The peanut butter and jelly one is called the “Cartoon Dog,” and I talked to one of the employees about it several times. She kept telling me that people love it, so I figured I’d try it. Now I know that I was being trolled. It was absolutely awful. I couldn’t finish it.

        That said, it’s clearly a sandwich.Report

      • Avatar Glyph says:

        No, I agree, it’s still a sandwich, in the same way that “slight nearsightedness” and “terminal cancer” are both “conditions”…Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko says:

        Not a sandwich. Bread is unified, not split. Is hot dog. Enjoy.

        Also that dog with the bacon, chili, cheese, and egg is not a strong move from a not-wanting-a-myocardial-infarction-like-immediately point of view.Report

      • Avatar Murali says:


        A pita bread stuffed (in the pocket) with falafel and hummus is still a sandwich. Its a pita pocket sandwich.Report

      • Avatar Glyph says:

        Not a sandwich. Bread is unified, not split.

        Hopefully, the American Heritage Dictionary definition will help you see the error of your ways (of course, the sandwich being English in origin, I am unsure why you seem to be getting hung up on minor transatlantic differences).

        b. A partly split long or round roll containing a filling.


      • Avatar Murali says:


        Subs are unified too (subway does not cut all the way through). A hot dog bun is just a smaller version of a submarine bun.Report

      • Avatar Burt Likko says:

        The Earl of Sandwich put meat between two slices of bread so he could eat while gambling and keep his hands clean. He did not put meat within a single piece of bread. That’s where the term came from, so that’s where I’m coming from with this definition.

        Rules are rules. If Subway doesn’t split its bread, then it isn’t selling a sandwich, but rather selling something else. Indeed, seems to me Subway’s products are often referred to as “subs” rather than “sandwiches.” Personally, I find the product coming out of most Subways bland and uninteresting as compared to those of its competitors, so I tend to eschew the Subway.Report

      • Avatar dragonfrog says:

        I’d always thought of “sub” as short for “submarine sandwich” (which does square with the sogginess of some of the bread).Report

      • Avatar Glyph says:

        Yep, it’s a ‘submarine sandwich’. (But Subway is indeed pretty terrible, and should always be a last resort sandwich).Report

      • Avatar Murali says:


        as HLA Hart often said, rules can be wide or narrow, open textured or closed and well defined. The mere tautology that rules are rules does not tell us what sort of rules the ones defining sandwiches are.Report

      • Avatar kenB says:

        So, I sometimes make what I (in my ignorance) call a “half sandwich” by spreading PB on one half of a slice of bread, jelly on the other half, and then folding it over. I’m willing to accept that this is not actually a “sandwich”, but if it’s not, then please let me know what to call it so I can respond accurately to any future diet-related questions.Report

      • Avatar Michael Cain says:

        Bread is unified, not split.

        So, make the meaningful distinction between “split” and “sliced”. Or remind me that I’m never going to get my mouth around a Burt-style corned beef on rye :^)Report

  5. Avatar Brandon Berg says:

    Words mean things, people. If it’s not made in Sandwich, it’s not a sandwich. It’s a disjoint pastry.Report

  6. Avatar Tod Kelly says:

    I don’t normally like to do this, but it looks like I need to pull rank and add an 11th Commandment:

    11. I say unto ye that sandwiches are and always will be vegetables, fruits and/or protein placed between at least two separate planes of bread. Delightful be those things that come close to being a sandwich without being sandwich, be they hot dogs, “open-faced sandwiches” or burritos, and they should be celebrated and consumed with gusto. But not sandwiches shall they be.Report

  7. Avatar Patrick says:

    Clearly there is only one rational solution here.

    I’m in charge. If I call it a sandwich, it’s a sandwich. If I call it something else, it’s something else. You don’t like my rules, I beat you to death with a hammer.

    Sound good?Report

    • Avatar Chris says:

      Works for me, as long as a hotdog is a sandwich.Report

      • Avatar Patrick says:

        A hotdog on a bun is a hot dog. A hot dog between two slices of bread is a hot dog sandwich.

        You would have no reason to refer to a hot dog on a bun as a “sandwich with a hot dog in it” unless you were speaking to someone from another planet.

        Everybody knows what a hot dog is. It’s a hot dog on a bun. You walk up to a hot dog vendor and you don’t want the bun, you have to specifically order “a hot dog, no bun”.Report

      • Avatar Kazzy says:

        Sometimes I toast my hot dog rolls and they will occasionally crisp up and break along the hinge. Have I then sandwichified my hot dog?Report

      • Avatar greginak says:

        Sounds like some kind of alchemy to me. The same question would apply to a broken hard taco shell of course.Report

      • Avatar Glyph says:

        If I have a threesome with conjoined twins, have they made a “Glyph sandwich”, or not?Report

  8. Avatar Jaybird says:

    Look, I’m just trying to pass some legislation to hurt the business of the guy who owns the food truck across the street without shooting myself in the foot.

    We ain’t talking about the metaphysics of “between bread” here but the physics of it.

    How should I phrase the law to screw over the guy over there?Report