I must steadfastly refute Mr. Rosetti’s claims that the hot dog is a sandwich. First of all, his definition of sandwich is flawed. While two seperate pieces of bread are not required to form a sandwich, the placement of the bread – on top and bottom- is what constitutes a sandwich. It is this distinction that allows a subway sandwich to be a sandwich, despite the fact that it lacks two distinct pieces of bread.
In Response to the Hot Dog Theorem
Written by
This brings me to my second issue with Mr. Rosetti’s argument: a lobster roll is not a sandwich. It is a roll. Rolls differ from sandwiches regarding bread placement. While a sandwich has bread on the top and bottom, a roll has bread on the left and right sides. If it were a sandwich, it would be called a lobster sandwich, but it’s not called a lobster sandwich, is it?
The lobster roll also brings into question Mr. Rosetti’s definition of “bread.” Most would argue that a roll is not made from simple bread, but bread in bun form. If we do not draw a distinction between typical bread and bun, then couldn’t any meat placed between two forms of bread be a sandwich? A burger consists of ground meat in between top and bottom “bread,” but it is certainly not a sandwich.
In conclusion, a hot dog is not a sandwich. It is a piece of meat sometimes placed on a bun. If Mr. Rosetti insists on classifying a hot dog as something other than simply that, the closest food family would be rolls.
Comments
2 responses to “In Response to the Hot Dog Theorem”
-
A factually supported and ultimately irrefutable conclusion. Well done Ms. Hussey. I’m confident Mr. Rosetti will think twice…no thrice…before uttering his cockamamie-flat-earth-sandwich theories in public again. The sandwich world needed a hero and her name is Hussey. We mortals salute you.
-
Sometimes a hot dog is just a hot dog.
Leave a Reply