Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Aug 16, 2018 at 13:55 comment added AndyT @computercarguy - Ah, ok. Previous comment deleted as not helpful.
Aug 16, 2018 at 13:21 comment added computercarguy @AndyT, the difference is which side of the debate you are on. Are you in contempt of people who eat junk food or are you one who is doing the eating? Of course, there are people who will dislike themselves for eating junk food, but that might be a different problem.
Aug 16, 2018 at 13:13 history edited computercarguy CC BY-SA 4.0
added 154 characters in body
Aug 16, 2018 at 8:17 history edited AndyT CC BY-SA 4.0
edited out parts now irrelevant following actual quote/context being added to the question
Aug 15, 2018 at 17:16 comment added Malady Yes, I'm presuming the speaker finds junk food to be the food of the (great) unwashed, and now that we have context, it's intended to be derisive of the masses, who are gorging themselves on junk food, unlike the speaker, who is the "better". ... ... The masses are eating junk food, not "not eating junk food".
Aug 15, 2018 at 15:34 comment added GalacticCowboy Although rare, I've heard (USA) the term "scarf" used instead of the (UK) "scoff" used in this sense.
Aug 15, 2018 at 15:06 comment added computercarguy @Malandy, I don't' see how "unwashed masses" is equivalent to "eating rapidly". Eating rapidly might mean a lack of manners, but there are plenty of so-called socially acceptable people that eat without manners. Also, the first part of your comment goes to supporting my answer, where "unwashed masses" are scorned, so food for unwashed masses would also be scorned by association. Simply using the phrase "unwashed masses" shows contempt for this group(?) of people, further supporting my answer.
Aug 15, 2018 at 14:25 comment added Malady It's usually said that junk food is for the unwashed masses, or similar, so "scoff" as "eating rapidly", makes the most sense...
Aug 15, 2018 at 14:15 history answered computercarguy CC BY-SA 4.0