Guest guest Posted December 31, 2003 Report Share Posted December 31, 2003 Mike, you're right, and I forgot to respond to your earlier message about " fresh " vs. " raw " . Excellent points, as usual. All I meant was, if you just call it " fresh " milk, most people will be confused, but of course you need to explain a little more anyway. I really like your suggestion for the two-qualifier appellation ( " fresh, unprocessed " ). The way you tied this to the NT/WAPF's worldview is very insightful. We all knew that, of couse, but you put it to words so well, also as usual. Succinct and pithy articulation is probably the best way to solidify loose knowledge and come to a greater understanding--so thanks! Anyway, I think that's a winner of the naming game and I concede the point happily. Tom > > You do risk confusing people with the ambiguous term " fresh " ; keep > > that in mind. All commercial dairies claim their pasteurized milk is > > " fresh " ! > > > > Tom > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > But their milk is actually not fresh, and the intended meaning of > this term can be clarified when it's used. Just like nobody would > agree that canned vegetables are fresh, once informed about > commercial milk they wouldn't agree that's fresh either. But I agree > that " fresh " in itself is vague (not ambiguous, just vague), and > someone could miss the point without further clarification. The > second qualifier " unprocessed " (an appealing, unscary word) nails > things down pretty tight. > > Mike > SE Pennsylvania Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.