Re: The exploding Krups FND1 espresso maker

Sounds to me like you are trying to put words in David's mouth.

Still, what you are saying about light is about right - when someone
uninformed (most buyers) buy a steam toy, it is as if they bought something
labeled a "table lamp" on the box and when they get it home they realize
that they can't plug it in because it is a kerosene lamp and even if they do
get it going the light is very dim compared to a modern electric lamp.

"Alan" <in_flagrante@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

"D. Ross" wrote
| References? I apologize but I must have missed the posting in which
| included references which documented the understanding of the public's
| conception of the meaning of espresso.

A reference was made to Illy, and while they don't seem to have been
in this thread other discussions on the same subject have quoted Bersten,
Schomer, et al. Pretty much any book on espresso will say the same
and this usage is backed by discussion here and in coffee shops. For
myself, it also includes a couple of decades of regular travel to
espresso-consuming countries.

However, all I was asking was for you to give some documentation for your
*own* assertion, which you repeat in this post:

| I think that you are somehow ignoring the fact that the issue is with
| SPEECH COMMUNITY AT LARGE ---- I'm not taking issue with the habits of
| speech community.

Putting it in all caps doesn't make the assertion any truer.

You can say that coffee books and discussions here don't count, since
are rarified, but in the absence of any independent support for your own
assertion that is kind of a weak objection.

Are you trying to convince people on this newsgroup of something? If so,
you need to back up your statements with more than a raised voice. By
contrast, I am not trying to convince anyone of anything; I didn't raise

I don't pretend to have perfect knowledge of what you call "the speech
community at large"; I'm not even sure I know what that means. I am
comfortable with the terminological conventions used by my circle of
acquaintances, and those used here and in the coffee literature, but I do
not presume to speak for anybody but myself. However, if as you contend
understanding of the word is different from that of some broader
then probably you have some responsibility to explain how you know this.

| particular speech habit. What I find incredible is your assumption
| English speakers everywhere share your perceptions.

Where do I say this? You keep putting words in my mouth, then attacking
them. Well, have fun with that.
Where do you say that? I don't even need to look up your past posts, all
I need to do is to refer what you've written below:
If I thought it at all relevant, I would predict that in the US, most
who know the word "espresso" identify it with a drink one can get at
Starbucks or similar, which is of course actual espresso.

If you want to argue about whether or not some Americans have changed the
word to suit their own conceptions, that's not something I care much
and I am willing for the sake of peace to cede that this might have been
Just been trying to point out to you that *you've* been the one attempting
to make the change
though I seem to recall you were stating that people cannot change the
meaning of words in this way.

| One poster here (Barry Jarrett) had the simplest (and in my opinion)
| elegant definition for espresso: " (coffee) brewed under pressure".

Barry can I'm sure describe several ways to prepare coffee under pressure
none of which a reasonable person would deem "espresso".
Right. One either agrees with your assertion, or one is unreasonable.

Well, it's been quite clear that you feel that I'm attacking your opinions
about espresso. I'm not.
Just your opinions about your insistence that steam-drive cannot produce
espresso. That was all. A language issue. Not a coffee issue.

I expect no response at all, but I'd just like to leave you with a little
food for thought:

1. "Espresso" was the name given to that which was produced by
low-pressure steam-drive apparatus.
2. A high-pressure pump-drive apparatus now produces that which is called
"espresso" which differs qualitatively from that which was previously
produced. (measurable differences in terms of substances extracted from
the coffee)
3. Ergo, that which is produced by steam-drive apparatus can no longer be
called "espresso".

The above, I believe, is a fair summary of your position, isn't it?

Now consider this:

1. "Light" was the name given to that which was produced by a flame,
whether it was produced by wax, kerosene, oil, or some other substance.
2. There now exists a rather dramatically different device known as a
light bulb producing that which is called "light" which also differs
qualitatively from that which had been previously produced. (measurable
differences in terms of intensity, consistency, and range of spectrum)
3. Ergo, that which is produced by flame can no longer be called "light"

If you agree with the first proposition, I'm sure you'll have no trouble
accepting the second.