Concerning lunch as being manipulated by "the consumer or a person who had the specific consumer in mind": instead of using the word "consumer" it would have been more accurate if I had used the words "intended consumer". The 'intended' refers to the time at which the lunch is being manipulated. Once the lunch is through the manipulation process and is a made lunch, whatever happens to it from that point on it will remain a made lunch while it still can be called alunch. In the example of a person making a lunch for oneself and then giving the lunch to a spouse, there is an intended consumer at the time of manipulation (oneself) and so it is a made lunch whether it is consumed by the intended consumer, or a different consumer, or it is not consumed at all. If the spouse returned home within the period of manipulation and so the intended consumer changed mid-manipulation, it is still a made lunch because there was still an intended consumer during manipulation. A lunch is not a made lunch if there is no specific intended consumer at all during the period of manipulation.

Concerning orange juice as "not a made lunch as it has no solid part": I agree that I was mistaken in distinguishing lunches as being "solid in entirety or in part" as opposed to being entirely liquid. What I should have said is that lunches can be said to be "eaten" as opposed to being "drunk", which incidently I did strongly allude to in the third paragraph of myfirst installment.

In the case of soup which can drunk from a cup or mug, if that soup was poured into a bowl and consumed with a spoon or similar utensil, it is said that the soup is eaten, therefore the soup can fit into the definition of a lunch. However orange juice (at room temperature) is never eaten, it is always drunk, no matter how many pulpy bits there are. But if you were to freeze the orange juice, then crush it up, it would take the form of a popular desert that goes under many names, one of which is 'slush puppy'. Then it is possible to lable this 'new' item as lunch.

Furthermore it has undergone adequate manipulation ("changing the food items such that they can be given totally different names to those they originally had") to be a made lunch. So orange juice, pre-manipulation, cannot be a lunch, but it can be manipulated into a lunch, and a made lunch at that.

Concerning "edible": a lunch must be edible for the intended consumer. In terms of a made lunch the intended consumer is that at the time of manipulation. In terms of a bought lunch the intended consumer is that at the time of purchase. In terms of a bought, made lunch it is whatever occurs the latest ofmanipulation and purchase.

Concerning "the original intents of the consumer were to consume ... the lunch at approximately noon": Again this is up to the dscretion of the intended consumer, and is a good example of where common sense shouldapply. Concerning eating breakfast for lunch: the verb or action here is "eating lunch" however the noun or object is "breakfast". Eating at lunch time (use common sense to determine lunch time) is the action of eating lunch, a breakfast is something that the intended consumer intended to consume at breakfast time (use common sense) at the time of purchase ormanipulation. So it is possible to eat lunch (action) without eatingA lunch (object).

I sicerely apologise if I came across as patronising in this discourse, it was not my intention. I am sure that the honourable Hicken K posseses much common sense, only she chose not to employ it while responding to my previous installment as it would only hinder her in her futile attempts to get around myinfallible logic.

Moving on to the recent writings of Earnshaw J, I am at a loss. I cannot disagree with them, largely because there is no logic to be disproved. When I am torn from my rational reasoning I am bamboozled and have not a leg to stand on.I do indeed recognise that the rational and logical have their constraints, and the more I meditate on what constitutes a made lunch the harder I find it to pin down, as more and more exceptions to my rules present themselves. But as you have seen I have not let it beat me yet.

But there is something that I know and have known from the very begining: that because of the illogical state of the english language the current debate will never come to fruition. There are words that have one meaning for one person a different (though not dissimilar) meaning for another person. "made" in the context of "a made lunch" is an example of one ofthese.

"Lunch may be objectively stated; lunch may be objectively made; lunch may be objectively eaten; but lunch may never be objectively experienced andunderstood." -- Earnshaw J

I have, until now, suppressed this truth in the back of my mind because it would have ruined my fun of being able to argue my case.

I fear this shall be my last contribution to The Great Lunch Debate, but before I depart I ponder one otherphrase of Earnshaw J:

"Lunch may be contained in a box but it will never be shackled in the experience of the consumer."

I rest my brain.