It's Keen's Mustard (try a google image search on that exact phrase) after Thomas Keen, founder of the company (born in 1801, quite a while after Jimbo's big bag'o'trivia has him founding the company). See http://mccormick.com.au/keens/history/mustard-history.aspx

McCormick have bought the Australian rights to the name.
>> ^jqpublick:

Definition 1 c) is where it comes from.
Definition of KEEN - Merriam-Webster online
1 a : having a fine edge or point : sharp
b : affecting one as if by cutting <keen sarcasm>
c : pungent to the sense
But maybe Keane just exploited the coincidence, I don't know.


>> ^CrushBug:
>> ^Boise_Lib:
"Keen as mustard"
That's a new one to me.

I think there is a brand of mustard in England by the name of Keane, so that might be where the phrase comes from.

Definition 1 c) is where it comes from.

Definition of KEEN - Merriam-Webster online

1 a : having a fine edge or point : sharp
b : affecting one as if by cutting <keen sarcasm>
c : pungent to the sense

But maybe Keane just exploited the coincidence, I don't know.




>> ^CrushBug:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
"Keen as mustard"
That's a new one to me.

I think there is a brand of mustard in England by the name of Keane, so that might be where the phrase comes from.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

"Keen as mustard"
That's a new one to me.


I think there is a brand of mustard in England by the name of Keane, so that might be where the phrase comes from.

"Keen as mustard"

That's a new one to me.

Been quite excited for this to finally come out. I worked on the first series (Airbender) for about 4 years of my life and was quite keen that Brian K has kept the momentum. Great stuff here folks!

>> ^MonkeySpank:

What's the point of having Nazi's on the moon? There are no Jews up there. Oh, and the technical term used in the field is Tritium, not Helium-3. Fucking Hollywood...


I'd say they're referencing Frank Schätzing.

...and i'm keen to see reactions of German Feuilleton when this hits the cinemas over here.

1. Yes, Randall should die. It's unfortunate, but by his own admission, he's already confirmed that the group he was with are not the most savory characters. He knows where the farm is and who Maggie and her family are. Plus, he knows that most of Rick's group are keen to kill him, which makes his motive for escape that much more enforced. At least his former group never tried to kill him. (We can't speculate here; only that facts that are presented to us, the audience) So he's definitely a liability to Rick's group.

2. Karl wants to prove himself. He's got two father figures telling him what to do, on top of a guarding mother. How should his parents approach the situation? Well...they haven't seen anything "wrong" yet, other than mouthing off to Carol. They don't know he stole Darrel's handgun, or confronted a zombie in the woods, etc. As for Karl wanting his Dad to shoot Randall, I'm sure Rick will have a sitdown and try to explain to him the logic behind his initial decision, and then the subsequent change of mind. Will he confess responsibility about the zombie? Tough call; if the writer's stick with the old Karl, he will. But Karl has changed (per his actions in this episode) and we never saw an apology to Carol. He could just shut down and harden up. Will the guilt get the better of him? I'd say yes, due to 1) he seems to have been brought up with a sense of justice and "doing the right thing" in part because of his father being a cop, and 2) at that age, when you screw up that bad, you don't just hide it away. He'll either confess, or confide in someone. I would have said he would have confided in Dale, but...well...you know....

3. Was it the right time to kill off Dale? Is it the right to ever kill of a character? Well, seeing as they've COMPLETELY strayed from the original Dale/Andrea story line in the original source material, I guess now is as good a time as any. My guess his Hershel will step up and take the mantel of the archetypal wise old man; it could give his character some redemption, if the writer's choose to go that route.
My immediate reaction to him dying was thinking "Well, Jeffrey DeMunn's off the show....I wonder what he'll do next with Frank Darabont..." Was his early death motivated by television politics....who knows. It seems to me that when you get an actor/director pairings, like DeMunn/Darabont, Russell/Carpenter, Depp/Burton, those tend to be pretty strong allegiances. I'm sure if there was some background gaffing over Darabont leaving the series, DeMunn was more than onboard with Darabont and wasn't surprised his character was killed off. I'll wait for the eventual news story/tell all book.

***Possible spoilers ahead if you haven't read the graphic novels***
As an aside, I'll cut back to season 1 for a moment, and what Jenner whispered to Rick before blowing up the CDC. I don't think he whispered some major secret to Rick; I have a feeling Jenner explained to Rick that "they" were the walking dead, and not the creatures outside. This is given in a huge, revelatory speech at the end of one of the books, don't remember which, after Rick breaks down from all the stress/guilt/death (that will eventually happen?). Seems a perfect fit into the storyline as they haven't mentioned it since the beginning of season 2 (when he's trying to reach Morgan on the radio). And I'm still waiting on Merle to show back up as the Governor.

Individuals are just as much a threat to our "way of life" as groups of powerful corporations. I submit the alcohol industry wasn't too keen on prohibition, yet it passed to the oppressing of all. Not to distract from the issue at hand, but it is a false notion to think that all the whims of the people are "just" and all the whims of special interest unjust. It is an unsophisticated understanding of the history of democracy and the oppression of the majority that leads to this kind of lax, wishful thinking.

My sister just passed her GSCE maths. Grade C. She always struggled, I spent many an hour doing my best to help her revise and boy did she work hard at it. She clearly doesn't care for the subject or find it interesting so for her this pass is a great relief and I'm proud of her. Will she do any more maths? Not a chance.

I think if you want to get kids into maths I really think you have to get them early. People always say that they don't have a maths brain, and while I don't doubt that some people find it harder than others I just don't buy that we all pop out of the womb preprogammed to be good/bad at specific school subjects. If it is as Tyson says, that the learning of maths actually lays down the nuerons required for problem solving then perhaps poor tuition early on in a kids education can effectively stunt their ability to learn more. That was always the feeling with my sister, the foundations on which they were building the new knowledge either didn't exist or were weak, and its difficult to go back to basics without being insulting. I think the fact her interests have diverged away from Science/Maths towards the arts (she's a keen photographer) is because she was struggling with the Sciences rather than the fact she struggles with the Sciences because she is more artistically inclined. (And I think this Science vs Art is a false duality, but thats another matter )

Anyway, just my thoughts/ramblings.

Well, it seems I can't promote it then. Rats. Sifty's keen to take the coin, but he's not so keen to get out the wheelbarrow

Correction: Was a keen roller-blader.

I'm not keen on slapstick, but it can be really funny when it's done right. I Hope it works for them.

I think he is saying "Treat 'em mean, keep 'em keen." Keen as in interested and as cliche advice for someone who is dating.

>> ^Nebosuke:

I'm missing the expression he says around 2:18. What is that expression and what does it mean?
I feel like this concept is explored quite a bit among comedians for longer than it has been acceptable on stage.
See The Aristocrats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Aristocrats_(film)

1. You're still using your subjective experience to prove Premise Two.

It's all subjective experience; again, if you want to claim that subjective determinations cannot lead to objective truths, then you can throw out any claim of an objective world and we can drown in relativism. Care to take another stab at it?

2. In the other threads you quoted one Wikipedia page at me without even reading the other one (Check the second paragraph of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical to see the difference). You ignore the fact that empiricism as a philosophy is an unscientific world view on its face due to its unverifiable claims of where information can and cannot come from.

What? What do you think empiricism is based on?

Definition of EMPIRICAL
1: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
4: of or relating to empiricism

It's clear now you have no idea what you're talking about. Yes, empiricism is a philosophy, and yes, it was one of my major points that you cannot verify empiricism without engaging in tautologies. You're just proving my point here. Yet, you show complete ignorance here as empiricism is a major foundation for the scientific method. The fact that I would have to prove this to you says it all..

http://davies-linguistics.byu.edu/elang273/notes/empirical.htm

"Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

I also guess you missed this:

"The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories. However, since the 1960s, Thomas Kuhn [2] has promoted the concept that these methods are influenced by prior beliefs and experiences. Consequently it cannot be expected that two scientists when observing, experiencing, or experimenting on the same event will make the same theory-neutral observations. The role of observation as a theory-neutral arbiter may not be possible. Theory-dependence of observation means that, even if there were agreed methods of inference and interpretation, scientists may still disagree on the nature of empirical data."

Meaning, the interpretation of data is philosophical.

3. You quoted people who haven't even graduated university at me???

The OP said he had not yet graduated, it doesn't mean all the participants have not. Did you even read it?

4. You equate spectators at a football game who are there to support their team with scientists collecting data (Scientists at that match would have been making a record of each foul), and on and on with analogies that all demonstrate a sad lack of understanding of how science works, or, in one case, modelling it somewhat accurately, but presenting it as if bias was something scientists didn't openly acknowledge, and didn't have processes to mitigate impact. If religion ever acknowledged its bias, it would cease to exist instantly, because its bias is the entire religion. At the very least, this makes science more mature and credible in the objective world.

Nothing you said here refutes any of the data provided, but is rather just you stating your opinion that it is wrong without backing it up. You also pass off the (now admitted) bias as being mitigated without explaining how. And then you create a false dichotomy by constrasting science and religion, and then attacking religion as "biased" and saying science is superior. If anything it just shows your religious devotion to science and your faith in the secular humanist worldview. Religion and science aren't in a competition, and science has no data on the existence of God. You may believe certain "discoveries" disprove things in the bible, but that is a different conversation. On the essential question, does God exist, science is deaf dumb and blind.

5. You go on with your, "There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe" spiel which is always countered with "Religion just catalogues things we cannot explain nor ever prove and ascribe them to a deity, knowing (hoping, hoping, please!!!) it will never be possible to disprove them, and all the while ignoring former claims for God that have been shown not to be God, but a newly understood and measurable force.

There are many lines of evidence which show it is reasonable to conclude that the Universe has an intelligent causation. There is evidence from logic, from morality, from design, from biology and cosmology, personal experience, culture, etc. It is not just appealing to some gaps, because special creation, as in the example of DNA, is a superior explanation to random chance. You're also going on about mechanisms which doesn't rule out Agency. You seem very overconfident and this is unwarrented, because there isn't much positive evidence on your side.

6. You are still conflating your "God" (I'm going to start calling him "Yahweh" to prevent this in the future) with any old god. The Big Bang Theory, which you alternately endorse and claim is bunk, could point to a creator, but by no means a god with any of the properties of Yahweh, except the singular property of the ability to create the universe as we know it.

Since time, space, matter and energy began at the big bang, the cause of the Universe would be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unimaginably powerful and transcendent. You can also make a case for a personal God from these conclusions. Before you go on about how no one says the Universe was created from nothing:

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

7. You quote scientists' opinions on religious issues like I think they're infallible prophets or something. Science doesn't work that way. Only religion does.

You seem to believe everything they say when their statements agree with your preconceived notions of reality. How about these statements?

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geologoy assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

Well we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. ..ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwins time.

By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as the result of more detailed information.

David M. Raup Chicago Field Museum of Natural History
F.M.O.N.H.B v.50 p.35

8. There's nothing we are "interpreting differently". You are interpreting everything as "Yahweh did it", and I'm not interpreting anything: There observably is CMBR, and it points to a Big Bang billions of years ago. That is all. You leap from this "suggestion" to "therefore it was Yahweh a few thousand years ago".

You're interpreting the evidence as pointing to random chance, I am interpreting it as being the result of intelligent causation.

And actually, without the hypothetical inflation, the smoothness of the CMBR contradicts the predictions of the theory. The CMBR should also all be moving away from the big bang but it is actually going in different directions.

9. I would never scoff at infallibility in anything that can be tested. I scoff only at claims of infallibility where by definition there is no possibility of failure only because there lacks any measure of success, just like every piece of dogma in the Bible, except for the ones that have been proven false, like the shape of the Earth, the orbit of the planets, and so on. Every scientific hypothesis has a measure of success or failure, and when one is disproven, that hypothesis is discarded, except to keep a record of how it was proven false.

Yet billions of people have tested the claims of Jesus and found them to be true. You believe because you fooled yourself with an elaborate delusion that any claim that disagrees with your naturalistic worldview is also an elaborate delusion that people have fallen into. I'm sorry but this does not follow. You're also wrong about your interpretation of the bible; it never claimed the Earth is flat or anything else you are suggesting.

10. I like your story of the scientist who climbs to find a bunch of theologians who have been sitting on a mountain of ignorance for centuries. Apt image. And I don't get the intent anyway. It suggests both that science could one day arrive at total knowledge (doubtful), and that religion has ever produced a shred of useful knowledge (it hasn't).

This is the problem with atheists, is that they are incapable of seeing the other side of the issue. Are you honestly this close-minded that you can't see the implications that Gods existence has for our knowledge? Or are you so pathological in your beliefs that you can't even allow for it hypothetically?

If God has revealed Himself, then obviously this is the most important piece of knowledge there is, and it is only through that revelation that we could understand anything about the world. It is only through that lens that any piece of information could be interpreted, or the truth of it sussed out. So, anyone having that knowledge, would instantly be at the top of the mountain of knowledge. The scientist only reached the top when he became aware of Gods existence by observing the obvious design in the Universe.

In short, I'm through talking about anything logical with you, or attempting to prove anything. You really, really do not understand the essential (or useless) elements of a logical discussion of proof. If you knew them, I would enjoy this debate. If you acknowledged this weakness and were keen to learn them, I would enjoy showing you how they work -- you seem keen. But neither seems the case. [edit -- This may be due to the fact that you're connected to both the objective world and the God world, and you're having trouble only using input from the one stream and not the other, like using input you received from your right eye, but not your left, as our memories are not stored that way. Either way, it is a weakness.]

Your arrogance knows no bounds. You've made it clear from your confusion about empiricism that you really don't know what you're talking about, and you tried to use that as a platform to condescend to me the entire reply. This isn't a logical discussion, this is an exposition of your obvious prejudice. You have no basis for judging my intelligence or capabilities..it's clear that your trite analysis is founded upon a bloated ego and nothing else.

When pride comes, then comes disgrace, but with humility comes wisdom. Proverbs 11:2

>> ^messenger

For someone who claims to have been a man of science, you are so far off on your understanding of science and even your ability to do basic research that you're looking a lot more like a troll on the Poe scale.

1. You're still using your subjective experience to prove Premise Two.
2. In the other threads you quoted one Wikipedia page at me without even reading the other one (Check the second paragraph of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical to see the difference). You ignore the fact that empiricism as a philosophy is an unscientific world view on its face due to its unverifiable claims of where information can and cannot come from.
3. You quoted people who haven't even graduated university at me???
4. You equate spectators at a football game who are there to support their team with scientists collecting data (Scientists at that match would have been making a record of each foul), and on and on with analogies that all demonstrate a sad lack of understanding of how science works, or, in one case, modelling it somewhat accurately, but presenting it as if bias was something scientists didn't openly acknowledge, and didn't have processes to mitigate impact. If religion ever acknowledged its bias, it would cease to exist instantly, because its bias is the entire religion. At the very least, this makes science more mature and credible in the objective world.
5. You go on with your, "There is plenty of evidence which suggests that God created the universe" spiel which is always countered with "Religion just catalogues things we cannot explain nor ever prove and ascribe them to a deity, knowing (hoping, hoping, please!!!) it will never be possible to disprove them, and all the while ignoring former claims for God that have been shown not to be God, but a newly understood and measurable force.
6. You are still conflating your "God" (I'm going to start calling him "Yahweh" to prevent this in the future) with any old god. The Big Bang Theory, which you alternately endorse and claim is bunk, could point to a creator, but by no means a god with any of the properties of Yahweh, except the singular property of the ability to create the universe as we know it.
7. You quote scientists' opinions on religious issues like I think they're infallible prophets or something. Science doesn't work that way. Only religion does.
8. There's nothing we are "interpreting differently". You are interpreting everything as "Yahweh did it", and I'm not interpreting anything: There observably is CMBR, and it points to a Big Bang billions of years ago. That is all. You leap from this "suggestion" to "therefore it was Yahweh a few thousand years ago".
9. I would never scoff at infallibility in anything that can be tested. I scoff only at claims of infallibility where by definition there is no possibility of failure only because there lacks any measure of success, just like every piece of dogma in the Bible, except for the ones that have been proven false, like the shape of the Earth, the orbit of the planets, and so on. Every scientific hypothesis has a measure of success or failure, and when one is disproven, that hypothesis is discarded, except to keep a record of how it was proven false.
10. I like your story of the scientist who climbs to find a bunch of theologians who have been sitting on a mountain of ignorance for centuries. Apt image. And I don't get the intent anyway. It suggests both that science could one day arrive at total knowledge (doubtful), and that religion has ever produced a shred of useful knowledge (it hasn't).

In short, I'm through talking about anything logical with you, or attempting to prove anything. You really, really do not understand the essential (or useless) elements of a logical discussion of proof. If you knew them, I would enjoy this debate. If you acknowledged this weakness and were keen to learn them, I would enjoy showing you how they work -- you seem keen. But neither seems the case. [edit -- This may be due to the fact that you're connected to both the objective world and the God world, and you're having trouble only using input from the one stream and not the other, like using input you received from your right eye, but not your left, as our memories are not stored that way. Either way, it is a weakness.]

The third thread about our (mostly your) beliefs seems like it might still be fun, and I may get there, but these first two two comments of yours really took the wind out of my sails.