I have fond memories of roasting marshmallows on a charcoal grill, something my mom always said that we couldn’t do on a gas grill. I don’t know whether it was due to the fact the flavor would be off, the temperature on a gas grill would be too high, or the goop from the marshmallows would mess up the workings of the gas grill if the goop dripped, or it was some combination of all three.
My father-in-law has a really nice gas grill that will have food ready in under 30 minutes, making grilled food available on weekdays. It’s convenient, but I miss the taste of a nice roasted marshmallow afterwards. I think that kids like “cooking” something themselves, looking at the fire, and of coarse the taste.
I agree with the others who say to get both. I would get a nice gas grill and a cheapy hibachi grill if only for the marshmallows. I want to do this when my own daughter gets old enough.
I guess the value of something cannot have a numerical value put on to the object. I guess this is more a philosophical question than a mathematical one.
The money had no INTRINSIC value. He couldn’t spend it. Was he upset about it, giving the money some form of value that could be expressed as a NUMERICAL value? Maybe. With the exception of the polar bears, Smokey, Benjamin Linus after you constantly, and Clair’s constant whining about the baby, it was a pretty nice trade off I think. No work, no traffic, beautiful surroundings. You could set up any point system to describe how people personally feel about a situation, but when you get down to the actual value of something, I still think it is zero.
“This is a comment on how a chess piece has no value unless it is in play on the board. If removed from the board, a pawn and a queen are equal, in that neither have any value.”
This statement also got my attention when I first read it. I think that its “Truth” depends on what perspective you take. If you have your queen taken, and it is placed in front of your opponent, then yes, you can look at YOUR queen as much as you want, but it has no value to you since you can’t use it. But if you look at the situation from your opponents view, it has tremendous value since it is indeed off of the board. I think that the statement is most true from the perspective of an observer watching the game, since for the most part, the observer does not have an invested interest in the pieces (unless they have put money on the game of course, then its back to no value).
It’s kind of like Hurley from LOST. Yes, he was a millionaire, but since his money was not with him on the island, did the money have any value to him? Hurley tried telling people his background, but he got no respect. The money was worthless. Zero points.
Side Note: There are several references to Alice in Wonderland on LOST. I wonder if the writers used the above statement about chess to write the character of Hurley?
I have fond memories of roasting marshmallows on a charcoal grill, something my mom always said that we couldn’t do on a gas grill. I don’t know whether it was due to the fact the flavor would be off, the temperature on a gas grill would be too high, or the goop from the marshmallows would mess up the workings of the gas grill if the goop dripped, or it was some combination of all three.
My father-in-law has a really nice gas grill that will have food ready in under 30 minutes, making grilled food available on weekdays. It’s convenient, but I miss the taste of a nice roasted marshmallow afterwards. I think that kids like “cooking” something themselves, looking at the fire, and of coarse the taste.
I agree with the others who say to get both. I would get a nice gas grill and a cheapy hibachi grill if only for the marshmallows. I want to do this when my own daughter gets old enough.
This statement also got my attention when I first read it. I think that its “Truth” depends on what perspective you take. If you have your queen taken, and it is placed in front of your opponent, then yes, you can look at YOUR queen as much as you want, but it has no value to you since you can’t use it. But if you look at the situation from your opponents view, it has tremendous value since it is indeed off of the board. I think that the statement is most true from the perspective of an observer watching the game, since for the most part, the observer does not have an invested interest in the pieces (unless they have put money on the game of course, then its back to no value).
It’s kind of like Hurley from LOST. Yes, he was a millionaire, but since his money was not with him on the island, did the money have any value to him? Hurley tried telling people his background, but he got no respect. The money was worthless. Zero points.
Side Note: There are several references to Alice in Wonderland on LOST. I wonder if the writers used the above statement about chess to write the character of Hurley?
(Husbands/boyfriends will understand this comment)