Pasta for dinner

[Anonymous]

Cool it. Friend may have expected sandwiches for kids. Salads for moms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Please stop using culture as an excuse for rudeness. In any culture it’s rude for a guest to comment like the friend did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Please stop using culture as an excuse for rudeness. In any culture it’s rude for a guest to comment like the friend did.

It may be slightly rude but people are getting carried away like she slapped op. It’s really not that deep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Yes… and that was extremely rude. You realize that one can be *unintentionally* rude, don’t you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cool it. Friend may have expected sandwiches for kids. Salads for moms.

I'm a mom and would much rather have a pasta. If I saw a salad I would not comment but would go home and eat a real lunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Please stop using culture as an excuse for rudeness. In any culture it’s rude for a guest to comment like the friend did.

It may be slightly rude but people are getting carried away like she slapped op. It’s really not that deep.

It’s not that deep but it is still rude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

I don't think that's true. I feel like OP has taken something from Italy, which is that pasta is a staple and is often the carb offered at meals, and combined it with something from America, which is that food offered to children is often different from what is offered to adults and minimally flavored, and created a meal that's not really common in Italy or America. In Italy, the kids would, at a minimum, been offered the same sauce as the adults. In America, something else would be on the plate, often something sweet like carrots, or fruit.

The exception would be if the family was severely lacking resources. If you're living during war time, or in a food desert where you're dependent on the food pantry, then pasta might be all you had. But in that situation, the adults would be eating plain pasta too.

[Anonymous]

What restaurants are you guys going to that offer buttered noodles on the menu? I see a lot of mac n cheese but I don't think I've ever seen buttered noodles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Yes… and that was extremely rude. You realize that one can be *unintentionally* rude, don’t you?

It was not extremely rude. That's an overreaction to something mildly annoying at worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Yes… and that was extremely rude. You realize that one can be *unintentionally* rude, don’t you?

It was not extremely rude. That's an overreaction to something mildly annoying at worst.

What reaction? You don’t know what words mean, ma’am. Maybe that’s why you’re rude AND annoying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What restaurants are you guys going to that offer buttered noodles on the menu? I see a lot of mac n cheese but I don't think I've ever seen buttered noodles.

Your mums house

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What restaurants are you guys going to that offer buttered noodles on the menu? I see a lot of mac n cheese but I don't think I've ever seen buttered noodles.

I see them nearly everywhere I go around here on the kids menu, but my kids don’t usually order it. Pizza Paradiso , Matchbox , the Salt Line, Old Ebbitt Grill, Maggiano’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What restaurants are you guys going to that offer buttered noodles on the menu? I see a lot of mac n cheese but I don't think I've ever seen buttered noodles.

Your mums house

False! When I was growing up my mom would serve a side dish of plain noodles without even butter. I still shudder at the memory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually am puzzled in that when I read about picky kids eating away from home buttered noodles are often mentioned. Was OP supposed to have asked if the guest kid wanted sauce?

Many Americans use the following formula to serve lunch and dinner meals: main +2 or main +3. If you google "divided kids plates" or "divided disposable plates," you'll see compartments with enough room for either main +2 or main +3. These are often available in-person at Targets and Walmarts. It's that common.

There are exceptions, like how pizza or large salads are often served alone. Many times soups may be served with only bread or crackers, but the general convention is to serve more than a main dish. Obviously that's not everyone's convention, hence the insane food war this thread has sparked. It is, however, a thing for many people.

So, no, OP wasn't supposed to have asked if the guest wanted sauce. OP's friend was thrown for a loop when she saw only a main served. Her response was rude, and probably would have been avoided if OP had served some sides with the pasta or turned the pasta into a large pasta salad with the sides basically in the dish.

I'm not saying OP "should" have done that, though, because one convention isn't better than the other. This is more like the "shoes vs no-shoes in the house" debate. No-shoes in the house may be cleaner, but it's not so much so that it's a big deal either way. Serving more food would have been better nutritionally, but ultimately is nbd for one meal. Neither position deserves the vitriol that has been spilled on this thread.

Strong disagree. The neurotic control freak almond moms who think their kids will immediately get colon cancer or scurvy and drop dead because they weren’t offered random fruit and vegetables that they may or may not have even eaten at an impromptu, post-playground lunch deserve ALL the vitriol they have received (and more).

Yet nobody actually cares about your opinion and they aren’t going to feed their kid junk food or trash bc you called them names. You’re outnumbered and come across as foolish.

Nobody cares what you feed your spawn in your own home. People just care that you exhibit basic manners when invited to someone else’s home. OP’s friend acted like a rude brat. That’s what this thread is ultimately about.

This isn’t a difficult concept to understand.

OP felt no shame to give her guests depression-era food. Hospitality = C-
OP's friend felt surprised and asked a question but just ate that slop once it was clear that there were no sides.

This isn't a difficult concept to understand.

+1

But OP’s friend was unnecessarily rude. (NP)

I don't think so. She was surprised and blurted out something. If she would have been really rude she would have asked more questions or made more comments and certainly would not have eaten the food. Boy, this was like a Seinfeld episode.

The food that OP served may have been very traditional in the sense what most Italians eat in Italy etc...but in the US, we are used to a somewhat more balanced meal - some veggies, some protein etc. So, no one is rude - this is merely a cultural divide.

Yes… and that was extremely rude. You realize that one can be *unintentionally* rude, don’t you?

It was not extremely rude. That's an overreaction to something mildly annoying at worst.

What reaction? You don’t know what words mean, ma’am. Maybe that’s why you’re rude AND annoying?

Good. Here to serve. Acting like this woman kicked puppies is weird. She wasn’t “extreme” anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cool it. Friend may have expected sandwiches for kids. Salads for moms.

“cool it”? How old are you? 85?