The largest omlette in the history of the world ever! 110,000 eggs, 10 metres across. 4.4 tonnes. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Is it an omnomnomlette or an omletdown? Certainly, it's big. But there's no suggestion of anything in it to jazz it up. No cheese, no mushrooms, no tomatoes. One might call it a vanilla omlette, an expression derived from ice cream, meaning plain, with no frills. But it's not ideal in this instance, it would probably suggest that the omlette is jazzed up with vanilla essence, and it probably isn't. I haven't had an omlette for ages. I don't think I ever got the hang of keeping them in one piece. But I wasn't that motivated to develop the skill to do so. After all, whether unified or disintegrated, it all tastes the same - so why bother? An omlette is about the flavour, not the cohesion. Yeah, okay, texture, a bit. But not much. Yeah? Still, if that's what they want to do for self-esteem in Turkey, fair enough. Take it where you can get it.
'You can't escape from the toxic mud'. That's a headline I saw on my feeds today. All in quotes. It's obviously about Hungary, but they make it sound like the strapline to some crappy film. Called 'Mud', perhaps. Maybe it will be. As I write and record this it is wine night, and rather than my usual tendency towards the South American I am drinking a Hungarian merlot. Hope that helps. On thing that interests me about the whole story is I've not seen any attempt to say what's in the mud in any but the vaguest detail. I've not been looking, I've just seen what reports came my way. They call it toxic, and occasionally refer to heavy metals in it. Tonight I heard mention of toxins. It's red, that much is clear. I could research it now, find our what was in it - but that would be missing the point, really. And if I was going to do some work just in order to miss the point there would have to be a good reason, and there isn't. You can research it and tell me, if you like. But I don't mind if you don't.
What's the point of forcing people to aplogise? I read a news about someone being forced to apologise for something, but the apology is meaningless if the aplogiser is compelled to apologise to the apologisee, surely? All it means is that someone in a position of power over the apologiser thinks that the apologisee was right, and they could say that without making the perpetrator say anything meaningless. They might as well compel whoever it is to say that they believe that Willy Wonka is real.
I don't think Willy Wonka is real, by the way. Just for the record.
Even if he visits a school.
that's all from me for now
see you around
Air Freshener Of The Day: ピコレット