The alignment chart re-imagined.

[DEFCON 1]

The above cited sandwiches are, by their very name, sandwiches and all would fit firmly in the "Lawful Good" slot.

I would argue that the use of 'sandwich' in the name "ice cream sandwich" is more adjective than it is noun. The word is being used to help describe the object, rather than define it.

If we were to show an ice cream sandwich to someone and ask them at a base level what it was... they'd say it was ice cream. Ice cream in a weird presentation, but ice cream nonetheless. The 'sandwich' part is just using an analogy to help us understand what the ice cream is shaped and appears like, not that it is one. And thus it cannot be in the Lawful Good section and belongs indeed where it was placed.

 

[embee]

Harary's law states that "any field with the name science in it is not a science".

Similarly, any food with the word sandwich in it is not a sandwich.

If it is called a 'submarine sandwich', it claims to be a sandwich, and the only reason it has to claim to be a sandwich and not (and, unlike a BLT just be one) is because it actually isn't.

This is also why it is a BLT, not a BLT sandwich. BLT pizza, BLT salad or a BLT wrap are all valid foods, but BLT sandwich is redundant.

I see your citation to "Harary's" law and rebut it with ACTUAL law.

Under New York law, "Sandwiches include cold and hot sandwiches of every kind that are prepared and ready to be eaten, whether made on bread, on bagels, on rolls, in pitas, in wraps, or otherwise, and regardless of the filling or number of layers. A sandwich can be as simple as a buttered bagel or roll, or as elaborate as a six-foot, toasted submarine sandwich."

New York is not alone in this attitude. See California (Treasure Island Catering Co., Inc. v. State Board of Equalization 19 Cal.2d 181) (hamburgers and hot dogs are sandwiches). See also SALES AND USE TAX REGULATIONS - Article 8.

Similarly, your attempt to analogize Harary's Law to sandwiches fails even the most cursory scrutiny. A tunafish sandwich is indisputably a sandwich, as is a peanut butter & jelly sandwich. These two elementary examples handily disprove your assertion.

 

[Morrus]

The Earl of Sandwich was indisputably a sandwich, as he had the word sandwich in his name.

 

[embee]

The Earl of Sandwich was indisputably a sandwich, as he had the word sandwich in his name.

He was also indisputably an inveterate gambler and his predilection towards card games led to his eponymous invention.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Look, can we all AT LEAST agree that the 4th Edition of sandwiches was terrible?

 

[embee]

Look, can we all AT LEAST agree that the 4th Edition of sandwiches was terrible?

Sadly no.

Bring a 4th edition sandwich to a game. Half the players will complain that it's not crunchy enough. The other half will say that they want more fluff. And several will say that the sandwich wasn't properly marketed. But most will say that it's still a serviceable sandwich and better than having no sandwich at all.

Somewhere out there, there is a group of grognards happily chowing down on 4th edition hoagies.

 

[TwoSix]

Look, can we all AT LEAST agree that the 4th Edition of sandwiches was terrible?

Please. 4th edition of sandwiches were the best, they were just marketed poorly.

 

[embee]

Please. 4th edition of sandwiches were the best, they were just marketed poorly.

What did I JUST say?!

 

[TwoSix]

What did I JUST say?!

Hey, I'm just a grog eating my 4th edition ice cream sandwich.

 

[NotAYakk]

What did I JUST say?!

Something about gambling.