ADVENTURES IN GRAMMARLAND #01 - The Proof is in the Pudding OR The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating?

hi Steemers,

so i'm pretty new, (i've been posting for a couple of weeks now) and learning how it works i think i'm getting my head around it :-/ please do feedback anything (constructive), i totally appreciate it as a newbie.

this week's misused phrase is: “The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating/Tasting.”

literal meaning: it doesn’t matter what it looks like, you don’t know how good the pudding tastes until you eat some of it.

metaphorical meaning: you can’t know if something is good or bad until you have tried, used, or experienced it.

so please - and you know who you are - STOP saying “The proof is in the pudding” because it very definitely IS NOT in the pudding! the proof of the pudding has, and always will be, in the eating (or tasting). let's apply a minimal degree of logic and ask:

what proof do you have? where exactly in the pudding are you putting it?

and, in the event you were putting proof in pudding:

WHY are you putting evidence in puddings?!

are you a pervert? statistically speaking, you probably aren't. dangerous. but even if you are a pervert – leave the pudding alone, you sick puppy. seriously, there could be kids present. PUDDING is for EATING. it’s a sugary, fat-filled, bribe to try and get everyone to eat your god awful cooking. a false promise that the final act will be excellent, even if everything leading up to that point was dreadful. and anyway - you shouldn’t eat evidence. if for some reason you find yourself in a position where you really have to - which you don’t – give it to the dog. dogs will eat anything.

but leave the pudding out of this.

it isn’t a bag; hole in the ground; open sewer; safety deposit box; fast flowing river... all of which make excellent places to “keep proof". pudding on the other hand is what you make from pudding ingredients. that’s actually how you make pudding.

so please, everyone, stop putting evidence of any description in puddings. even if it's sugar. it’ll just make the innocent pudding taste bad. instead, sell the stolen sugar to someone who is going to put it in their tea and doesn't know where it came from. and of course hard evidence in a soft pudding is not what people are expecting. it will make them sick and break their teeth. plus, puddings are designed to be eaten, often in front of strangers, so whatever you put in there will not remain hidden for long. at best: you'll get a visit from the social [services]. at worst: you could be looking at internal bleeding, manslaughter and perverting the course of justice. that's just for starters, too, never mind the loss or destruction of evidence and the myriad complications included with that. all because you were too lazy to deal with incriminating evidence?

i love (from what i've seen) how interactive steem can be, and i would like to be a part of it. for me it would be amazing if Steemers could vote in the comments section to decide shall i do:

"Hence" vs "Hence why"
or
"Moot point" vs "Mute point"

answers, questions, general stuff - on a digital postcard (aka the comments section). shout-outs in the piece next week to everyone who leaves a comment saying what to write about, this week! :-D

much love,

HA

@humanauction