The Official languages are english AND french but...

nic   Wednesday, November 17, 2004, 13:27 GMT
France, Swiss and Belgium but some other countries in the past had the same definition.

The best chocolate has been traditionnally made in Swiss and Belgium.
Toasté   Wednesday, November 17, 2004, 15:22 GMT
The Scottish invented the MODERN monetary system, including the concept of paper money.

This revolutionary idea was brought to France by John Law, who, while Scottish, created the world's first Central Bank for King Louis XV.

Unfortunately, Law also brought the modern concept of accounting fraud with him and the system colapsed. It was the Enron of its day, only a lot bigger.

Because of this experience, for years French people avoided using the word "Bank" in describing their financial institutions, which is why a lot of deposit taking institutions are called "Credit... something", as in Credit Lyonaise, Credit Agricole.
lims   Wednesday, November 17, 2004, 23:13 GMT
Nice history lessons on the various threads.

There is a family-owned Quebec company called Leclerk that's been in business since 1905. I don't know where the family's ancestors hailed from, before settling in Quebec, but I love their Belgium chocolate chip cookies, it's incredibly addictive, so flavourful. Leclerk has factories in North America and probably have their products in stores world-wide too. No, this isn't a service announcement for them and I have no stock, if they even offer it.
Jim   Thursday, November 18, 2004, 02:10 GMT
That we call Mars Bars "chocolate" in English is not a sign of perfection: quite the opposite. As Nic points out the so-called chocolate coating of Mars Bars, Bounty, etc. (it's about the coating: the filling is a different story) contains a certain amount of milk fat and vegetable fat in place of the cocoa butter.

The inclusion of milk fat can enhance the taste so this is justified but the adding of vegetable fat is done simply to cut costs and thus increase profits. Their profits are increased at the expence of the consumer and of the producers of pure chocolate.

That in English we call this stuff "chocolate" is a reflexion of the power of big business over the language. Perhaps this is one of those "flaws" in the language. Could English be improved by adoption of the word "vegelate"?
Rocky   Thursday, November 18, 2004, 05:45 GMT

there are Belgian "chocolates" that are nothing more than chocolate coated pieces.
nic   Thursday, November 18, 2004, 10:32 GMT

I couldn't explain it better than you did. Your explanation is perfect.


Of course, but the traditionnal chocolate producers won't never use milk fat and vegetable as said Jim. Because the "world business" decided to legalize the appelation "chocolate" instead of chocolated bar, some swiss, belgians and french producers said it was illegel because of the chocolate definition in its confection which does not include vegetable fat and milk fat.

What you call chocolate coated pieces are illegaly called in the these 3 countries (not really actually because of business men who destroy everything which can be good in that world and replace it by things which are not but makes money.

In the past for Belgium, Swiss and France if you wanted to sell some Mars Bars you couldn't say "i can sell you 200 KG of chocolate" BUT "I can sell you 200 Kg of chocolated bars".

It sounds to you the same but it's not.

Can you say to a Scottish person, Bourbon whiskey is the same thing as your pure malt whisky?
Can you say to an Iranian person, caviar is the same chip thing some people have for x-mas?
Can you say to a French white wine with gas is the same thing as Champagne?
Can you say to an Italian, you can call both cheese Mascarpone and the thing you have in your burger?

…of course not.
nic   Thursday, November 18, 2004, 10:41 GMT

John LAW escaped from France and Louis 15 offered a lot of money to people who could find him.
Rocky   Thursday, November 18, 2004, 11:06 GMT
It isn't illegal to call it chocolate coated candy, because that's all it is. It isn't really chocolate if it's only coated with a film.

A Mars bar is a Mars bar. Chocolate is chocolate but chocolates aren't necessarily chocolate.
Bourbon whisky isn't Scotch whisky.
Sparkling wine isn't necessarily Champagne because not all sparkling wines come from there.
Caviar is roe but not all roe come from sturgeon.
If you sell 200 KG of chocolate, you don't sell 200 KG candy bars, but you might sell 200 KG of cocoa beans.

It doesn't sound the same because it's not.
nic   Thursday, November 18, 2004, 12:37 GMT

you said "If you sell 200 KG of chocolate, you don't sell 200 KG candy bars, but you might sell 200 KG of cocoa beans."

That's what i said, but there has been a law (there are 2 years if i remember well) which said you can call a Mars bar chocolate. This law has made a lot of "noise" in Swiss, Belgium and France.

As you said : "A Mars bar is a Mars bar. Chocolate is chocolate but chocolates aren't necessarily chocolate".

Chocolates aren't necessarily chocolate, that's precisly whare these 2 countries usually pointed the difference, maybe you understand the difference in the french language :

-chocolat is not the barre chocolatée.

The difference has been precisly pointed by Jim
Toasté   Thursday, November 18, 2004, 15:48 GMT
Thanks Nic... I love the story of John Law, I always reminds me that some of our modern problems have very old roots.

One of my great uncles had a small store in Victoria, British Columbia that used to make top quality chocolates in the artisanal way. Dark chocolates, not 'milk chocolate'.

He was driven out of business in the 1960s when mass produced brands like "Pot-o-gold" started to get very popular.

He used to say that 'pot-o-gold' tasted like dry dung with a crunchy middle.

Today, "Pot-o-gold" positions itself as a high end brand -- which it only is if you compare it to Hershey or Mars products.

I don't think North Americans even know what real chocoloate is supposed to taste like any more.

Too bad.
lims   Friday, November 19, 2004, 05:06 GMT
I'm going to have to check what the 'real' ingredients are in my 'Belgium' chipped cookies again, maybe it's a so-called coconut ingredient that's actually enhancing the taste.

Hypothetical question only: If a 100% of people did not vote for ANY of their countries' next eligible leader, does anyone suspose that their current leader would still continue to rule until people decided to vote again? I don't think there ever was a 100% non-voting from people who could vote before.
Adam   Friday, November 19, 2004, 05:14 GMT
I think most countries require a certain percentage of the population to vote in order for the vote to count. If under that certain percentage, whatever it is, votes, then the vote doesn't count. Then there has to be another election. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that is how it usually works.
Jean Luke   Friday, November 19, 2004, 08:32 GMT
Canada can suck my balls
nic   Friday, November 19, 2004, 09:15 GMT

You are welcome, you know it's the same in France, which french know what's a real amburger? I've eaten some very ones only in USA. When you are french and only know Mc D..... (to not nampe it), it's only shit.


If People did not vote, the answer is simple. The situation could be better in our respective countries. No propaganda against french in USA and no propaganda against US americans in France. The world could be better if we did not have our actual politicians.
Toasté   Friday, November 19, 2004, 16:37 GMT
Jean Luke...

why would Canada want to "suck your balls"... you seem to be fine doing it all on your own.