Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> Kathleen > wrote:
>
>
>>Pete C. wrote:
>>
>>>Chatty Cathy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Andy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That's a tad neurotic! The whole survey is! I won't eat an egg if it's
>>>>>rotten
>>>>>and that's it.
>>>>
>>>>Was it? Just because an egg has a "string" or a "spot" does not
>>>>necessarily mean its rotten, IMNSHO.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>Cheers
>>>>Chatty Cathy
>>>
>>>
>>>Correct, strings and specs have nothing whatsoever to do with an eggs
>>>freshness.
>>
>>Well, no, of course not. The string is part of the structure of the egg
>>itself. The bloody spot, otoh, indicates fertilization.
>
>
> So how do you explain blood spots in eggs where no rooster was available?
>
I can't explain it because I've never found a bloody spot in an egg that
came from somewhere (like a supermarket by way of a factory farm) where
there was no rooster available.


>>People are just weird sometimes. It's okay to eat eggs, it's okay to
>>eat chickens, but somehow the mid-point, a fertilized egg, is icky.
>
>
> I'm ok with fertilized eggs (ate them for years) but I'll have to pass
> on Baluts, thanks. ;-)
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balut

I'd pass on that too, myself. Although my JRT, disgusting little
egg-sucker that he is, would no doubt enjoy Balut as much as he did the
contents of the nest of a hapless, shore-dwelling, probably endangered,
bird.

MMMmm... Crunchy, chewy and juicy all at once.