Dear 100 Hour Board,
Where do you fit?
I am somewhere between a structural neutral, ingredient purist and hardline traditionalist. Some structures are not compatible with true sandwich-hood. Subs are okay because they are joined-together bread. That's not far from ingredient purist. It would not be acceptable to put sandwich ingredients on a hot dog bun or in a taco shell - that would just be dumb.
Structure Neutral, Ingredient Purist, though I am somewhat sympathetic to the "hot dogs are a sandwich" cause. I do not fully agree with them, but I've had experiences with similar dishes (specifically, serving bratwurst on a pretzel roll with spicy mustard) that make me see how they could think such a thing might qualify as a sandwich.
-Frère Rubik feels more sophisticated than he probably should when discussing this issue
I long to be a radical anarchist, but I am called to be a structural purist, ingredient rebel.
Structural neutral, ingredient rebel. Anyone who does not identify as an ingredient rebel may never eat an ice cream sandwich ever again.
I guess I'll let the rest of you know how I feel about the topic. I believe that a food item is a sandwich if it has the classic sandwich ingredients AND/OR it has a classic sandwich shape. I'm willing to go as far as neutral in either dimension, as long as the other dimension stays traditional.
If you ever offer me a sandwich and then give me an ice cream sandwich, know that I will be happy because you have given me ice cream, yet disappointed at the lack of sandwich. It's an ice cream sandwich, not a sandwich.
Radical sandwich anarchy. If some poor misguided soul wants to call something a sandwich, let them call it a sandwich. They're not hurting anyone. What is a chip butty, though? British people are so fascinating.