Sqwertz wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
>
> > 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!
>
> The bones in salmon are the best thing about those cans. I bet you
> only eat the skin, right?

In that case, they should just sell cans of salmon bones.
At least YOU would be happy. Stir fry with hot peppers

>
> And I am also a proponent of shell-on (and optional head) fried
> shrimp at 36+ct per pound(*). And fried soft shell blue crabs.

Soft shell crabs have no noticable bones. Frying is the the only way
to enjoy that very tasty treat. Serve on a hot bun with or without
sauce and legs hanging out. YUM. Looks like a spider sandwich.

I cook steamed/boiled shrimp with shell on but you don't eat that.
I'll grant you and a few others... maybe deep frying them might work.
I was planning to deep fry a couple yesterday and I opened my shrimp
package. Arrghh! No shells. They only had tails on. I just didn't
notice that when I bought them. Oh well. I'll eat them but I prefer
to buy with shells on and remove them later.

>
> Stick to your Hungry Man dinners.

They actually do make a few good one. I'll buy them occasionally when
they go on sale and save them for lasy nights.

>
> (*) I noticed you only picked on the women's posts when they supported
> the shell-on shrimp, but you didn't touch my posts when I also
> endorsed them (twice).

1) I didn't want to respond to several with the same post so
I pick the most relavant one.
2) No one ever wins arguing with sw. Why even try?

Don't feel left out - your post or two was just redundant.

I fully realize that some people here have TIAD.

Note: according to many here, I also have that syndrome.
Difference is that I freely admit it.
Like Cheri says often now...each to their own tastes.