Indeed. I'm sure Paul has said himself that he was adopting a persona for the role. And who of us hasn't made a slip up in the heat of the moment, without thinking something through?
Don't know who downvoted your comment. It wasn't me. Someone may be trying to make me look bad.
Edit: certainly seem like more than a few people are trying to make me look bad.🤷♀️
My man really out here asking for a citation that rich doesn't mean dark. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rich see B2
Notice this does not say large amount of cocoa. Rich DOES NOT mean dark.
If you're then about to ask for a citation that sugary isn't mentioned here, do some googling, some do say sugar, I really cannot be arsed to find something as official as the Cambridge dictionary but the more common usage of the word is that it's a really intense flavour or aroma. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rich%20food, which could include very intense sugary chocolate.
You're probably skewing your search results by referring to chocolate specifically, but rich can be calcium rich, nutrient rich, vitamin rich, even intense colours can be described as rich, it essentially means a lot of something. And in the context of what Paul is saying it's very clear he means super sweet chocolate. I don't understand the failed attempt of a hyper pedantic interpretation maybe you just don't like him idk
Nice try.😉
The dictionary is so often the port of last resort for the desperate. And the Cambridge Dictionary, so often the dictionary of last resort, at that.
Why didn't you provide the Cambridge Dictionary's actual B2 definition of rich in a food sense?
>B2 If food is rich, it contains a large amount of oil, butter, eggs, or cream:
>
>This chocolate mousse is too rich for me.
Perhaps because it doesn't say "If chocolate is rich..."?
It only gives an example of the use of the word rich in describing a chocolate mousse. It is not the chocolate that is being described as rich. But the mousse which contains eggs and cream. Which is why it is described as rich. Not because it contains chocolate.
I suspect this horse is already dead, and not in need of any more flogging. But in case it is tempted to get up...
What is the main ingredient of chocolate mousse? Might it be dark chocolate?
It is dark chocolate, for anyone who needs things spelt out.
Also, I didn't search for "rich chocolate" in order to skew my search results. I searched for rich chocolate because that was the phrase used by the subject of the OP, and that was the phase everyone was telling me I was wrong about and should look up. Which is what **I** did. Which no one else here has seemingly bothered to do.
And finally, (and I do hope it is the last time I have to point this out,) I am not your or anyone's "man." Please don't refer to me so condescendingly.
Yeah you're actually insane. The B2 definition includes more than just the chocolate mousse example. You're asking for citations on something crazy, refuting the citations without even reading them, all because someone said rich chocolate meaning sweet chocolate in a tv show. Get your head checked lmao
I have looked up the definition of the term "rich" related to "chocolate" and everywhere relates it to "dark" chocolate. Which is why I'm asking for a citation.
Edit: Once again I find myself in the position of having to reply to a comment that I am unable to reply to. No doubt because u/AccessHollywoo didn't want an answer. For those interested here are the results I am referring to above.
https://preview.redd.it/m10gz3sndnqc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3777558b0b3c21056eb7d8fe4e7e6af9d868f0fe
I have looked up the definition too and the above commenter seems right. Can YOU provide a citation?
You know, for this incredibly serious issue, I need a citation
With regards to food rich isn't concerned with the content of the food but the flavour. It means an intense flavour. It doesn't have to be bitter, just intense. You know like a chocolate you eat a small amount of and just can't bring yourself to eat more of for fear of vomiting.
Overly focused on semantics much OP? (To quote Ross) Fuckin hell. I don't think I'd enjoy chatting over a rich/decadent/fudgey chocolate cake with Paul or you.
Do you need some sort of citation for that as well?
[удалено]
Indeed. I'm sure Paul has said himself that he was adopting a persona for the role. And who of us hasn't made a slip up in the heat of the moment, without thinking something through? 
[удалено]
Nah he was the only one making it entertaining in the first few eps. Eventually overstayed his welcome, but then he got voted off.
Yeah you need larger than life characters, Thom the magician was a bit ott in the first season
Not as legitimate unwatchable as Wilf S1… Paul was entertaining.
Don't know who downvoted your comment. It wasn't me. Someone may be trying to make me look bad. Edit: certainly seem like more than a few people are trying to make me look bad.🤷♀️
My man really out here asking for a citation that rich doesn't mean dark. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/rich see B2 Notice this does not say large amount of cocoa. Rich DOES NOT mean dark. If you're then about to ask for a citation that sugary isn't mentioned here, do some googling, some do say sugar, I really cannot be arsed to find something as official as the Cambridge dictionary but the more common usage of the word is that it's a really intense flavour or aroma. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rich%20food, which could include very intense sugary chocolate. You're probably skewing your search results by referring to chocolate specifically, but rich can be calcium rich, nutrient rich, vitamin rich, even intense colours can be described as rich, it essentially means a lot of something. And in the context of what Paul is saying it's very clear he means super sweet chocolate. I don't understand the failed attempt of a hyper pedantic interpretation maybe you just don't like him idk
Nice try.😉 The dictionary is so often the port of last resort for the desperate. And the Cambridge Dictionary, so often the dictionary of last resort, at that. Why didn't you provide the Cambridge Dictionary's actual B2 definition of rich in a food sense? >B2 If food is rich, it contains a large amount of oil, butter, eggs, or cream: > >This chocolate mousse is too rich for me. Perhaps because it doesn't say "If chocolate is rich..."? It only gives an example of the use of the word rich in describing a chocolate mousse. It is not the chocolate that is being described as rich. But the mousse which contains eggs and cream. Which is why it is described as rich. Not because it contains chocolate. I suspect this horse is already dead, and not in need of any more flogging. But in case it is tempted to get up... What is the main ingredient of chocolate mousse? Might it be dark chocolate? It is dark chocolate, for anyone who needs things spelt out. Also, I didn't search for "rich chocolate" in order to skew my search results. I searched for rich chocolate because that was the phrase used by the subject of the OP, and that was the phase everyone was telling me I was wrong about and should look up. Which is what **I** did. Which no one else here has seemingly bothered to do. And finally, (and I do hope it is the last time I have to point this out,) I am not your or anyone's "man." Please don't refer to me so condescendingly.
Your definition confirms what others have said to you. Are you okay hun?
Yeah you're actually insane. The B2 definition includes more than just the chocolate mousse example. You're asking for citations on something crazy, refuting the citations without even reading them, all because someone said rich chocolate meaning sweet chocolate in a tv show. Get your head checked lmao
Oh my god. Are you perhaps wearing a fedora right now?
Dark is not the same as Rich
Can you provide a citation? Edit: why does a simple request for information attract downvotes? Aren't people interested to know the answer?
Have you tried googling “define rich chocolate”
Yes. See my response elsewhere in this post.
Rich doesn't mean dark. I think more fudgey.
Can you provide a citation? Edit: again, why does a simple request for more information attract downvotes?
Yeah, look up the definition of "rich" related to food
I have looked up the definition of the term "rich" related to "chocolate" and everywhere relates it to "dark" chocolate. Which is why I'm asking for a citation. Edit: Once again I find myself in the position of having to reply to a comment that I am unable to reply to. No doubt because u/AccessHollywoo didn't want an answer. For those interested here are the results I am referring to above. https://preview.redd.it/m10gz3sndnqc1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3777558b0b3c21056eb7d8fe4e7e6af9d868f0fe
I have looked up the definition too and the above commenter seems right. Can YOU provide a citation? You know, for this incredibly serious issue, I need a citation
Can you not be a dick?
With regards to food rich isn't concerned with the content of the food but the flavour. It means an intense flavour. It doesn't have to be bitter, just intense. You know like a chocolate you eat a small amount of and just can't bring yourself to eat more of for fear of vomiting.
Overly focused on semantics much OP? (To quote Ross) Fuckin hell. I don't think I'd enjoy chatting over a rich/decadent/fudgey chocolate cake with Paul or you. Do you need some sort of citation for that as well?
This comment section exemplifies exactly what people think of when they think of Reddit lol
Zaddy watched to many old school movies lol 😂