Bob (this one) wrote:
>
> Whoever wrote that about shark being served as scallops has never
> handled and cooked shark. There's not the remotest possibility of
> confusing the two.

If you have never had either, how would you know? A lot of shitty
restaurants pass off one thing as another. Most sheeple wouldn't know
the difference.
<snip>

>
> Then you're not likely to buy scallops and are no judge of them.

Why would she not belikely to buy scallops? We all tried them once for
the first time, sometime. And one doesn't have to be a good judge of
something to be fooled.
<snip>

>
> Substituting one kind of fish for another is something I could do all
> day long and no one could tell except someone extremely knowledgeable.
> There are four or five textures of fin fish and that's all there is. If
> I served a flatfish sauteed in butter and dressed with parsley, I
> daresay not one in 10,000 could identify what kind it is. But if I
> served shark - any shark - next to a scallop, the difference is like
> beef and grapefruit. No relationship to each other. Texture, flavor,
> color, mouthfeel, smell, bite - all different from each other.

Which matters not one iota if the diner has never had scallops or
shark.
<snip>

>
> I might begin to believe it if someone whose knowledge I trusted said he
> or she had seen it firsthand. Until then... Nope. It's an unproven
> assertion. An urban legend until I see something that actually proves it.
>

Oh please. You can bet that some jerk somewhere is passing off skate,
shark - or any other lower-cost seafood item - as scallops. Or cat as
duck. Or turkey as ostrich. Or whatever.

-L.