Cheri wrote:
>
> "Gary" > wrote in message ...
>
> > That said, sf has claimed more than once here that she eats shrimp,
> > shell and all. Pretty weird but each to their own.
>
> I deep fried them in the shell after coating them with a thin layer of corn
> starch not too long ago, they were delicious, crunchy and spicy..but they
> were fairly small shrimp, 30-40 per pound not the big ones. What is weird
> about it?

Nothing according to you. You like what you like.

First of all, the 'not so small' 30-40 count. Those shells are thick
enough to be quite nasty. Not to you though but I'll take your stand and
not argue....if you love them, that's good enough for me. I won't waste
expensive shrimp that way.

cshenk says: people that never try it, don't even know what they are
missing.
And cooked without shells turns them rubbery.
Wrong. Rubbery shrimp are over cooked, that's all

Shrimp with shells in soup and other dishes is just wrong. If you'll
want to munch on cellophane, knock yourselves out. I would return the
dish if a restaurant served me that nonsense.

I don't eat bones but I do make stock out of them.
Same thing with exoskeltons. Not to eat but to make stock.

Dsi1 claims that people here aren't willing to try new things. I've
tried shrimp with shells on...nasty. I even tried fried blue crabs with
top shell off but all cartilage there...even more nasty. And I still
wonder why people will buy those large cans of salmon with cooked bones.
YUK!