On the other hand, I would like to respectfully suggest that the judgment of my most revered and wise friend Choo LJ is not nearly as sensible. Indded, it seems that Choo LJ will not budge from her definition of lunch, despite the fact that I had already flawlessly proved that a "made lunch" is merely anything edible.

However, to prevent this debate from turning into one over semantics, for the time being I will rebut Choo LJ's claims with her definition in mind.

With regard to the matter of the cornthin:
My most esteemed and learned colleague Choo LJ suggested that if "the Corn thins in the "corn thin sandwich" are even stacked in the same way in which they were stacked in the bag they came in", then it does not constitute a 'made' lunch. However, what if I were to swap two cornthins so that they are now in a different order? That would certainly mean that I have manipulated my food in some way and have therefore 'made' lunch!

Or what if I place a soy and linseed cornthin betwixt two normal cornthins? Although this will still constitue a 'stack' of cornthins, the action of its production is parallel to that of placing a slice of cheese between two bits of bread!

So it comes down to this. If I am to agree with my most learned and noble friend Choo LJ, then I am to be ruthlessly condemming the process of 'making lunch' as a mere bureaucratic exercise, where while one stack of cornthins can be considered made, another identical stack may not be.

This means that if ever I want to assert that I have 'made' lunch, all I have to do is something silly like swap two bits of cornthins around, or add corn to my pizza, or mix my carrots and celery around before I eat it, or peel my mandarin and bananas, or break my bread into two pieces. In this way, I am "shaping, modifying, or putting together material" as a resonable person would.

My most logical and rational colleague Choo LJ exclaimed, "Are we also to suggest that one piece of bread is also a made lunch?"

I would like to calmly and joyfully respond with an resounding "YES!"

And so it seems that my propositions that really anything can constitute a 'made' lunch still stands.