When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the tail
as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you supposed to eat
shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out and shell it, then
drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is disgusting and ridiculous.
I just had this problem with risotto in a pretty good restaurant and
it's happened before with soup. They could just as easily have removed
the whole shell. What say you?

--

On 10/2/2016 1:48 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the tail
> as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you supposed to eat
> shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out and shell it, then
> drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is disgusting and ridiculous.
> I just had this problem with risotto in a pretty good restaurant and
> it's happened before with soup. They could just as easily have removed
> the whole shell. What say you?
>
I wouldn't eat it. In fact, I would probably return it (and that is
very unusual for me).

MaryL

On 10/2/2016 2:48 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the tail
> as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you supposed to eat
> shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out and shell it, then
> drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is disgusting and ridiculous.
> I just had this problem with risotto in a pretty good restaurant and
> it's happened before with soup. They could just as easily have removed
> the whole shell. What say you?
>

I say they are either lazy, ignorant, or both. Never ran into that and
would never put a shell into soup or risotto.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> On 10/2/2016 2:48 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the tail
> > as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you supposed to eat
> > shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out and shell it, then
> > drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is disgusting and ridiculous.
> > I just had this problem with risotto in a pretty good restaurant and
> > it's happened before with soup. They could just as easily have removed
> > the whole shell. What say you?
> >
>
> I say they are either lazy, ignorant, or both. Never ran into that and
> would never put a shell into soup or risotto.

Very strange that a *nice* restaurant would do this.
Any shrimp mixed into a meal should be completely peeled.
Order steamed shrimp and they often come with full shells
that you remove as you eat each one.
Order shrimp cocktail and often the tails are left on
as a holder but not intended to eat.

That said, sf has claimed more than once here that she eats shrimp,
shell and all. Pretty weird but each to their own.

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 2:48:16 AM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the tail
> as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you supposed to eat
> shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out and shell it, then
> drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is disgusting and ridiculous.
> I just had this problem with risotto in a pretty good restaurant and
> it's happened before with soup. They could just as easily have removed
> the whole shell. What say you?

You're right, they should have removed the shell. However, in your
situation I would cut off the tail, sadly discarding the meat within.

I rarely get shrimp at such nice places, nor with such complex
preparations. I usually just separate the "fin" part of the tail
from the rest, and that last section of carapace slides off
pretty easily. This, of course, presupposes a plate on which
to perform the surgery.

Cindy Hamilton

Tom Del Rosso wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the
> tail as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you
> supposed to eat shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out
> and shell it, then drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is
> disgusting and ridiculous. I just had this problem with risotto in a
> pretty good restaurant and it's happened before with soup. They
> could just as easily have removed the whole shell. What say you?

Tom, in some cultures, the shell (at least the tail) is eaten. It's
actualy good for you in reasonable amounts. Natural chondritin and
such. Although you say Risotto here (generally Italian), there are
many things similar to a risotto that aren't from there and would be
cooked with at least partly shell on with choice of shalling further,
left up to the eater.

You should have been served a tiny 3 prong fork with the meal (or in
other cultures, chopsticks). These are used to gently hold the shrimp
by the tail and then you either bite off the piece that is shelled and
place the tail to the side of the bowl, or you eat the whole thing.

I had an intriguing dish in Hawaii (but don't know as it's common
there, house specialty at an eatery just short of the mini-tunnel
leading to the state university north of Waikiki). It was a fast dish
of a minimum of shrimp stock, lemon pepper, a bit of garlic, and whole
shrimp (even the heads were left on). These were cooked in an almost
stirfry method until the liquid was gone then served with rice to the
side and a small dipping bowl of more stock. I'd see some eat them
whole, shell and all, and others set the shells to the side then salt
and pepper them and eat them alone as an almost dessert sort of thing.
I know it sounds like 'salt and pepper shrimp' but it wasn't the same.
I'm pretty sure there was no oil used at all because I would take the
heads home and freeze them then once enough, I'd dump them in some
water and crush them then boil for a shrimp stock (strain before use
obviously). No oil/fat on the top at all. Maybe DS1 might recognize
it?

Carol

--

MaryL wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 10/2/2016 1:48 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the
> > tail as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you
> > supposed to eat shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out
> > and shell it, then drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is
> > disgusting and ridiculous. I just had this problem with risotto in
> > a pretty good restaurant and it's happened before with soup. They
> > could just as easily have removed the whole shell. What say you?
> >
> I wouldn't eat it. In fact, I would probably return it (and that is
> very unusual for me).
>
> MaryL

Sad smile, then you'd be missing a treat. But that's ok. Places I
have been where it is served that way in a soup, don't mind if you do
not eat the tails. Often enough, others at the table do like them and
they are shared to a center plate so others can have more. (I'd be one
snagging extras).

Carol

--

Gary wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> > On 10/2/2016 2:48 AM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > > When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on
> > > the tail as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you
> > > supposed to eat shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it
> > > out and shell it, then drop it back in the soup to eat it? That
> > > is disgusting and ridiculous. I just had this problem with
> > > risotto in a pretty good restaurant and it's happened before with
> > > soup. They could just as easily have removed the whole shell.
> > > What say you?
> > >
> >
> > I say they are either lazy, ignorant, or both. Never ran into that
> > and would never put a shell into soup or risotto.
>
> Very strange that a nice restaurant would do this.
> Any shrimp mixed into a meal should be completely peeled.
> Order steamed shrimp and they often come with full shells
> that you remove as you eat each one.
> Order shrimp cocktail and often the tails are left on
> as a holder but not intended to eat.
>
> That said, sf has claimed more than once here that she eats shrimp,
> shell and all. Pretty weird but each to their own.

Here in Hampton Roads, you'll only see things served 'with shell'
pretty much at the ethnic eateries. (outside the normal use of tail for
a handle of course).

There's a lovely one at the Grand International Market, inside (far
corner from the entrance). Along Newtown just north of Virginia Beach
BLVD (on the left). Korean mostly but they have other things. Only
drawback for me is they don't serve food until about 11 while I
normally like to shop earlier than that. I may stop by tomorrow on my
way home from work as it's not but 1/2 mile diversion from my route.

My favorite there is a Korean 'seafood soup' that is absolutely
fantastic! I can't recall the name of it but it's called 'bottomless
pit soup' by my daughter.

Much to our suprise as we dug about in there, we had at least 10 types
of seafoods buried under the thick seafood soup base with a little
seaweed, some minimal udon, bits of asian mustards and so on. The
shrimp were peeled (but pretty sure we found a few tastey tails). The
mussels where whole and still in the shell (steamed open separately to
make sure they were good then added to the soup). From memory (and now
I'm getting hungry!): Mussels (still attached to shell), oyster
(attached to 1/2 shell), octopus, clam (cherrystone chopped), shrimp,
scallop, crab, ?Lobster?, squid, and bits of what I think were snapper
but may have been tilapia. We've had it a couple of times and it's not
exactly the same each time because it seems to vary with the seasons.
I'm pretty sure in blue-crab season here, the goodies from inside the
shell get added. It's a really big serving, so expect to get 2 or more
meals off it. Priced right since the serving is so big.

If I go there soon, I'll try to remember to post some of the prices and
names of stuff. Bulgogi and Bim Bap I do recall are on the menu. They
also have the best selection of Kimchees (not just your rote cabbage
ones). My favorite isnt actually very hot at all. It's a bean sprout
one with sesame seeds that's in the mild range of the kimchee name. If
you like Wolf Chili, you can handle this one if not into the normal
kimchee heats.

Carol



--

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 4:30:58 AM UTC-10, cshenk wrote:
> Tom Del Rosso wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> > When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the
> > tail as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you
> > supposed to eat shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out
> > and shell it, then drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is
> > disgusting and ridiculous. I just had this problem with risotto in a
> > pretty good restaurant and it's happened before with soup. They
> > could just as easily have removed the whole shell. What say you?
>
> Tom, in some cultures, the shell (at least the tail) is eaten. It's
> actualy good for you in reasonable amounts. Natural chondritin and
> such. Although you say Risotto here (generally Italian), there are
> many things similar to a risotto that aren't from there and would be
> cooked with at least partly shell on with choice of shalling further,
> left up to the eater.
>
> You should have been served a tiny 3 prong fork with the meal (or in
> other cultures, chopsticks). These are used to gently hold the shrimp
> by the tail and then you either bite off the piece that is shelled and
> place the tail to the side of the bowl, or you eat the whole thing.
>
> I had an intriguing dish in Hawaii (but don't know as it's common
> there, house specialty at an eatery just short of the mini-tunnel
> leading to the state university north of Waikiki). It was a fast dish
> of a minimum of shrimp stock, lemon pepper, a bit of garlic, and whole
> shrimp (even the heads were left on). These were cooked in an almost
> stirfry method until the liquid was gone then served with rice to the
> side and a small dipping bowl of more stock. I'd see some eat them
> whole, shell and all, and others set the shells to the side then salt
> and pepper them and eat them alone as an almost dessert sort of thing.
> I know it sounds like 'salt and pepper shrimp' but it wasn't the same.
> I'm pretty sure there was no oil used at all because I would take the
> heads home and freeze them then once enough, I'd dump them in some
> water and crush them then boil for a shrimp stock (strain before use
> obviously). No oil/fat on the top at all. Maybe DS1 might recognize
> it?
>
> Carol
>
> --

That would be the Hawaiian Garlic Shrimp. It's a popular dish here. The shrimp with the shell is lightly coated with flour seasoned with cayenne. Butter is melted in a pan and heated until bubbly. Add the shrimp and fry a couple of minutes on each side - longer if it's large. Flip the shrimp. Add a large amount of chopped garlic and fry until browned and shrimp is done. Don't overcook the shrimp. Plate the shrimp and spoon the garlic on top.

I make this dish with oil instead of butter and the shrimp is fried at high heat and burned in a controlled manner. You wouldn't normally be able to cook shrimp this way - unless you leave the shell on.

As far as how you're going to eat this thing - you're on your own.

On 10/2/2016 8:30 AM, cshenk wrote:
> Tom Del Rosso wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the
>> tail as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you
>> supposed to eat shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out
>> and shell it, then drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is
>> disgusting and ridiculous. I just had this problem with risotto in a
>> pretty good restaurant and it's happened before with soup. They
>> could just as easily have removed the whole shell. What say you?
>
> Tom, in some cultures, the shell (at least the tail) is eaten. It's
> actualy good for you in reasonable amounts. Natural chondritin and
> such. Although you say Risotto here (generally Italian), there are
> many things similar to a risotto that aren't from there and would be
> cooked with at least partly shell on with choice of shalling further,
> left up to the eater.
>
> You should have been served a tiny 3 prong fork with the meal (or in
> other cultures, chopsticks). These are used to gently hold the shrimp
> by the tail and then you either bite off the piece that is shelled and
> place the tail to the side of the bowl, or you eat the whole thing.
>
> I had an intriguing dish in Hawaii (but don't know as it's common
> there, house specialty at an eatery just short of the mini-tunnel
> leading to the state university north of Waikiki). It was a fast dish
> of a minimum of shrimp stock, lemon pepper, a bit of garlic, and whole
> shrimp (even the heads were left on). These were cooked in an almost
> stirfry method until the liquid was gone then served with rice to the
> side and a small dipping bowl of more stock. I'd see some eat them
> whole, shell and all, and others set the shells to the side then salt
> and pepper them and eat them alone as an almost dessert sort of thing.
> I know it sounds like 'salt and pepper shrimp' but it wasn't the same.
> I'm pretty sure there was no oil used at all because I would take the
> heads home and freeze them then once enough, I'd dump them in some
> water and crush them then boil for a shrimp stock (strain before use
> obviously). No oil/fat on the top at all. Maybe DS1 might recognize
> it?
>
> Carol
>
When I was a child, my parents would buy a half-pint of shrimps from
seaside shacks. We would top-and-tail them and eat them without pealing.
Graham

On 2016-10-02, graham > wrote:

> When I was a child, my parents would buy a half-pint of shrimps from
> seaside shacks.

"When I was a child"...... I doubt you were even born.

Oh, and shrimps were yet to be polluted with Corexit and an ton of
antibiotics like they are, today. Today, I only eat "shrimps" when
I'm feeling a tad suicidal.

nb

On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 02:48:07 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> wrote:

>When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the tail
>as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you supposed to eat
>shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out and shell it, then
>drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is disgusting and ridiculous.
>I just had this problem with risotto in a pretty good restaurant and
>it's happened before with soup. They could just as easily have removed
>the whole shell. What say you?

I say there should be no shell in that soup or risotto...

Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 02:48:07 -0400, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
>> When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the
>> tail as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you
>> supposed to eat shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out
>> and shell it, then drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is
>> disgusting and ridiculous. I just had this problem with risotto in a
>> pretty good restaurant and it's happened before with soup. They
>> could just as easily have removed the whole shell. What say you?
>
> I was once served some breaded and deep fried 15-18ct shrimp that
> still had their complete shells on. Big shrimp like that you really
> can't eat the shells. Duh.

These were 3 inches long in both cases, so about the same size.

Tom Del Rosso > wrote:

> When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the tail
> as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you supposed to eat
> shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out and shell it, then
> drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is disgusting and ridiculous.
> I just had this problem with risotto in a pretty good restaurant and
> it's happened before with soup. They could just as easily have removed
> the whole shell. What say you?

In Europe, "bouillabaisse-type" soups (not real bouillabaisse which is
served "en deux services", i.e. soup and fish/shellfish are served
separately) very often contain whole unshelled prawns.

Victor

On 10/2/2016 3:23 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> call them "shrimps" <shiver> :-)
>
> -sw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com


Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 2016-10-02 5:14 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 02:48:07 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
> > wrote:
>
>> When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the tail
>> as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you supposed to eat
>> shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out and shell it, then
>> drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is disgusting and ridiculous.
>> I just had this problem with risotto in a pretty good restaurant and
>> it's happened before with soup. They could just as easily have removed
>> the whole shell. What say you?
>
> I say there should be no shell in that soup or risotto...
>

I always thought the tail was left on for aesthetic purposes. The are
annoying but they look interesting. Shrimp is not as expensive as it
used to be but restaurants still tend to scrimp on them. Having to take
them out of a dish and extract the meat from the bit of tail slows you
down a little so you don't gobble the shrimp too quickly and end up
disappointed by the small portion.

As for risotto.... I had shrimp risotto in what was billed to be a very
authentic Italian restaurant in Newport Beach CA last year and the tails
were in the shrimp.

On 10/2/2016 2:55 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> You eat them whole. Really good.
>
> -sw
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com


Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 10/2/2016 2:51 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> you really
> can't eat the shells. Duh.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ost
>
3/18/2011 3:49 PM
Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1162
readnews.com - News for Geeks and ISPs
fa35d278.newsreader.readnews.com


Sorry I don't fit either of your Ideal Psycho Pal Profiles.

-sw
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd prefer you use a sniper rifle on me from a few hundred yards away.
There you go - a reason for you to buy yet another gun and ammo.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 11:38:26 AM UTC-10, Victor Sack wrote:
> Tom Del Rosso > wrote:
>
> > When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the tail
> > as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you supposed to eat
> > shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out and shell it, then
> > drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is disgusting and ridiculous.
> > I just had this problem with risotto in a pretty good restaurant and
> > it's happened before with soup. They could just as easily have removed
> > the whole shell. What say you?
>
> In Europe, "bouillabaisse-type" soups (not real bouillabaisse which is
> served "en deux services", i.e. soup and fish/shellfish are served
> separately) very often contain whole unshelled prawns.
>
> Victor

You get a better product when you fry shrimp/prawns with the shell on. Shrimps fried without the shell gets rubbery. I wouldn't think of doing that to a shrimp now that I have seen the light. Is it messy? You bet - and don't ask me how you're supposed to eat the thing. Figure it out yourself.

My guess is this kind of shrimp may be trending on the mainland soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nOk4ewNH7c

On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 17:53:14 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-10-02 5:14 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 02:48:07 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the tail
>>> as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you supposed to eat
>>> shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out and shell it, then
>>> drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is disgusting and ridiculous.
>>> I just had this problem with risotto in a pretty good restaurant and
>>> it's happened before with soup. They could just as easily have removed
>>> the whole shell. What say you?
>>
>> I say there should be no shell in that soup or risotto...
>>
>
>I always thought the tail was left on for aesthetic purposes. The are
>annoying but they look interesting. Shrimp is not as expensive as it
>used to be but restaurants still tend to scrimp on them. Having to take
>them out of a dish and extract the meat from the bit of tail slows you
>down a little so you don't gobble the shrimp too quickly and end up
>disappointed by the small portion.

Interesting conspiracy theory there

>As for risotto.... I had shrimp risotto in what was billed to be a very
>authentic Italian restaurant in Newport Beach CA last year and the tails
>were in the shrimp.

One of these days I'll get to try a 'real' risotto...

At home I occasionally make stock out of prawn or lobster shells.

On 2016-10-02 6:35 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 17:53:14 -0400, Dave Smith

>> As for risotto.... I had shrimp risotto in what was billed to be a very
>> authentic Italian restaurant in Newport Beach CA last year and the tails
>> were in the shrimp.
>
> One of these days I'll get to try a 'real' risotto...
>
> At home I occasionally make stock out of prawn or lobster shells.
>


I would like to make risotto but there are a couple problems. From what
I understand about risotto, it has to be eaten fresh because the booking
method leads me to believe that it is not going to work as leftovers. My
wife is does the low carb thing and doesn't eat much rice. I have had
risotto twice in my life, both in the last two years. I might add that
the shrimp risotto in that Italian restaurant may have affected my
attitude about Italian restaurants.

"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?

Cheri

dsi1 wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 4:30:58 AM UTC-10, cshenk wrote:
> > Tom Del Rosso wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > > When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on
> > > the tail as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you
> > > supposed to eat shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out
> > > and shell it, then drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is
> > > disgusting and ridiculous. I just had this problem with risotto
> > > in a pretty good restaurant and it's happened before with soup.
> > > They could just as easily have removed the whole shell. What say
> > > you?
> >
> > Tom, in some cultures, the shell (at least the tail) is eaten. It's
> > actualy good for you in reasonable amounts. Natural chondritin and
> > such. Although you say Risotto here (generally Italian), there are
> > many things similar to a risotto that aren't from there and would be
> > cooked with at least partly shell on with choice of shalling
> > further, left up to the eater.
> >
> > You should have been served a tiny 3 prong fork with the meal (or in
> > other cultures, chopsticks). These are used to gently hold the
> > shrimp by the tail and then you either bite off the piece that is
> > shelled and place the tail to the side of the bowl, or you eat the
> > whole thing.
> >
> > I had an intriguing dish in Hawaii (but don't know as it's common
> > there, house specialty at an eatery just short of the mini-tunnel
> > leading to the state university north of Waikiki). It was a fast
> > dish of a minimum of shrimp stock, lemon pepper, a bit of garlic,
> > and whole shrimp (even the heads were left on). These were cooked
> > in an almost stirfry method until the liquid was gone then served
> > with rice to the side and a small dipping bowl of more stock. I'd
> > see some eat them whole, shell and all, and others set the shells
> > to the side then salt and pepper them and eat them alone as an
> > almost dessert sort of thing. I know it sounds like 'salt and
> > pepper shrimp' but it wasn't the same. I'm pretty sure there was
> > no oil used at all because I would take the heads home and freeze
> > them then once enough, I'd dump them in some water and crush them
> > then boil for a shrimp stock (strain before use obviously). No
> > oil/fat on the top at all. Maybe DS1 might recognize it?
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > --
>
> That would be the Hawaiian Garlic Shrimp. It's a popular dish here.
> The shrimp with the shell is lightly coated with flour seasoned with
> cayenne. Butter is melted in a pan and heated until bubbly. Add the
> shrimp and fry a couple of minutes on each side - longer if it's
> large. Flip the shrimp. Add a large amount of chopped garlic and fry
> until browned and shrimp is done. Don't overcook the shrimp. Plate
> the shrimp and spoon the garlic on top.
>
> I make this dish with oil instead of butter and the shrimp is fried
> at high heat and burned in a controlled manner. You wouldn't normally
> be able to cook shrimp this way - unless you leave the shell on.
>
> As far as how you're going to eat this thing - you're on your own.

Close relative dish! This one however had no fat at all. No garlic of
note either. I do like the garlic shrimp. I also agree, shelling when
cooking this way, doesnt work. Folks who have only had shelled shrimp,
are missing part of the charm but unaware of it.

Carol

--

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 1:31:08 PM UTC-10, cshenk wrote:
> dsi1 wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> > On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 4:30:58 AM UTC-10, cshenk wrote:
> > > Tom Del Rosso wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> > >
> > > > When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on
> > > > the tail as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you
> > > > supposed to eat shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out
> > > > and shell it, then drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is
> > > > disgusting and ridiculous. I just had this problem with risotto
> > > > in a pretty good restaurant and it's happened before with soup.
> > > > They could just as easily have removed the whole shell. What say
> > > > you?
> > >
> > > Tom, in some cultures, the shell (at least the tail) is eaten. It's
> > > actualy good for you in reasonable amounts. Natural chondritin and
> > > such. Although you say Risotto here (generally Italian), there are
> > > many things similar to a risotto that aren't from there and would be
> > > cooked with at least partly shell on with choice of shalling
> > > further, left up to the eater.
> > >
> > > You should have been served a tiny 3 prong fork with the meal (or in
> > > other cultures, chopsticks). These are used to gently hold the
> > > shrimp by the tail and then you either bite off the piece that is
> > > shelled and place the tail to the side of the bowl, or you eat the
> > > whole thing.
> > >
> > > I had an intriguing dish in Hawaii (but don't know as it's common
> > > there, house specialty at an eatery just short of the mini-tunnel
> > > leading to the state university north of Waikiki). It was a fast
> > > dish of a minimum of shrimp stock, lemon pepper, a bit of garlic,
> > > and whole shrimp (even the heads were left on). These were cooked
> > > in an almost stirfry method until the liquid was gone then served
> > > with rice to the side and a small dipping bowl of more stock. I'd
> > > see some eat them whole, shell and all, and others set the shells
> > > to the side then salt and pepper them and eat them alone as an
> > > almost dessert sort of thing. I know it sounds like 'salt and
> > > pepper shrimp' but it wasn't the same. I'm pretty sure there was
> > > no oil used at all because I would take the heads home and freeze
> > > them then once enough, I'd dump them in some water and crush them
> > > then boil for a shrimp stock (strain before use obviously). No
> > > oil/fat on the top at all. Maybe DS1 might recognize it?
> > >
> > > Carol
> > >
> > > --
> >
> > That would be the Hawaiian Garlic Shrimp. It's a popular dish here.
> > The shrimp with the shell is lightly coated with flour seasoned with
> > cayenne. Butter is melted in a pan and heated until bubbly. Add the
> > shrimp and fry a couple of minutes on each side - longer if it's
> > large. Flip the shrimp. Add a large amount of chopped garlic and fry
> > until browned and shrimp is done. Don't overcook the shrimp. Plate
> > the shrimp and spoon the garlic on top.
> >
> > I make this dish with oil instead of butter and the shrimp is fried
> > at high heat and burned in a controlled manner. You wouldn't normally
> > be able to cook shrimp this way - unless you leave the shell on.
> >
> > As far as how you're going to eat this thing - you're on your own.
>
> Close relative dish! This one however had no fat at all. No garlic of
> note either. I do like the garlic shrimp. I also agree, shelling when
> cooking this way, doesnt work. Folks who have only had shelled shrimp,
> are missing part of the charm but unaware of it.
>
> Carol
>
> --

This group tends to be jaded and not very adventurous - they're not going to get it. The younger generation will.

On 10/2/2016 6:47 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

> I would like to make risotto but there are a couple problems. From what
> I understand about risotto, it has to be eaten fresh because the booking
> method leads me to believe that it is not going to work as leftovers.

I often have it as leftovers. Tastes fine to me.

My
> wife is does the low carb thing and doesn't eat much rice.

Can't help you there.

On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 18:47:00 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-10-02 6:35 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Oct 2016 17:53:14 -0400, Dave Smith
>
>>> As for risotto.... I had shrimp risotto in what was billed to be a very
>>> authentic Italian restaurant in Newport Beach CA last year and the tails
>>> were in the shrimp.
>>
>> One of these days I'll get to try a 'real' risotto...
>>
>> At home I occasionally make stock out of prawn or lobster shells.
>>
>
>
>I would like to make risotto but there are a couple problems. From what
>I understand about risotto, it has to be eaten fresh because the booking
>method leads me to believe that it is not going to work as leftovers. My
>wife is does the low carb thing and doesn't eat much rice. I have had
>risotto twice in my life, both in the last two years. I might add that
>the shrimp risotto in that Italian restaurant may have affected my
>attitude about Italian restaurants.

If you have leftover risotto you form it into little patties/cakes,
dip in breadcrumbs, and fry in olive oil.

Here's a really nice recipe:

http://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1...-risotto-cakes

I have some cut up butternut squash in my fridge - I guess I'll have
to make this tomorrow night.

Doris

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 1:31:08 PM UTC-10, cshenk wrote:
> > dsi1 wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > > That would be the Hawaiian Garlic Shrimp. It's a popular dish
here.
> > > The shrimp with the shell is lightly coated with flour seasoned with
> > > cayenne. Butter is melted in a pan and heated until bubbly. Add the
> > > shrimp and fry a couple of minutes on each side - longer if it's
> > > large. Flip the shrimp. Add a large amount of chopped garlic and fry
> > > until browned and shrimp is done. Don't overcook the shrimp. Plate
> > > the shrimp and spoon the garlic on top.
> > >
> > > I make this dish with oil instead of butter and the shrimp is fried
> > > at high heat and burned in a controlled manner. You wouldn't normally
> > > be able to cook shrimp this way - unless you leave the shell on.
> > >
> > > As far as how you're going to eat this thing - you're on your own.
> >
> > Close relative dish! This one however had no fat at all. No garlic of
> > note either. I do like the garlic shrimp. I also agree, shelling when
> > cooking this way, doesnt work. Folks who have only had shelled shrimp,
> > are missing part of the charm but unaware of it.
> >
> This group tends to be jaded and not very adventurous - they're not
> going to get it. The younger generation will.

They're not all pioneers of the palate here, and some are absolute
gastronomic fuddy duddies, but there are also some with Asian food
inclinations, which I suppose you're referring to.

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 6:04:39 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 11:38:26 AM UTC-10, Victor Sack wrote:
> > Tom Del Rosso > wrote:
> >
> > > When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the tail
> > > as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you supposed to eat
> > > shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out and shell it, then
> > > drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is disgusting and ridiculous.
> > > I just had this problem with risotto in a pretty good restaurant and
> > > it's happened before with soup. They could just as easily have removed
> > > the whole shell. What say you?
> >
> > In Europe, "bouillabaisse-type" soups (not real bouillabaisse which is
> > served "en deux services", i.e. soup and fish/shellfish are served
> > separately) very often contain whole unshelled prawns.
> >
> > Victor
>
> You get a better product when you fry shrimp/prawns with the shell on.

But you'd lose the crispy batter coating, which provides a nice contrast
when dipped into the cocktail sauce.

The shrimp in the video did look delicious.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 7:31:08 PM UTC-4, cshenk wrote:

> Close relative dish! This one however had no fat at all. No garlic of
> note either. I do like the garlic shrimp. I also agree, shelling when
> cooking this way, doesnt work. Folks who have only had shelled shrimp,
> are missing part of the charm but unaware of it.

Perhaps, but I can't imagine a load of shrimp shells passing through
my digestive system without causing havoc.

Cindy Hamilton

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> dsi1 wrote:
> > You get a better product when you fry shrimp/prawns with the shell on.
>
> But you'd lose the crispy batter coating, which provides a nice contrast
> when dipped into the cocktail sauce.

He's assuming you will eat shell and all. So wrong. Heathens.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 7:31:08 PM UTC-4, cshenk wrote:
>
> > Close relative dish! This one however had no fat at all. No garlic of
> > note either. I do like the garlic shrimp. I also agree, shelling when
> > cooking this way, doesnt work. Folks who have only had shelled shrimp,
> > are missing part of the charm but unaware of it.
>
> Perhaps, but I can't imagine a load of shrimp shells passing through
> my digestive system without causing havoc.

No worse than eating a 2 pack of Hostess Chocolate Cupcakes, cellophane
and all.

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!

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 11:09:36 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > dsi1 wrote:
> > > You get a better product when you fry shrimp/prawns with the shell on.
> >
> > But you'd lose the crispy batter coating, which provides a nice contrast
> > when dipped into the cocktail sauce.
>
> He's assuming you will eat shell and all. So wrong. Heathens.

I know that. That's why I provided a winky emoticon.

Hey, I thought about you this morning. Before I went to my job, I
painted a door jamb. I reached into my homeowner's bag of tricks,
and brought out every ill-considered mistake (except one).

Hasty prep
Cheap brush
Inadequate light

The only one I missed was crappy paint.

Luckily, the area is extremely poorly lit, so the fact that it
looks like an acre of cornfield (ruts, stubble, the occasional
rock) will scarcely be noticeable.

Cindy Hamilton

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 12:11:39 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 6:04:39 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 11:38:26 AM UTC-10, Victor Sack wrote:
> > > Tom Del Rosso > wrote:
> > >
> > > > When it comes to shrimp cocktail of course the shell is left on the tail
> > > > as a handle, but shrimp in soup or risotto? How are you supposed to eat
> > > > shrimp like that in soup? You have to pick it out and shell it, then
> > > > drop it back in the soup to eat it? That is disgusting and ridiculous.
> > > > I just had this problem with risotto in a pretty good restaurant and
> > > > it's happened before with soup. They could just as easily have removed
> > > > the whole shell. What say you?
> > >
> > > In Europe, "bouillabaisse-type" soups (not real bouillabaisse which is
> > > served "en deux services", i.e. soup and fish/shellfish are served
> > > separately) very often contain whole unshelled prawns.
> > >
> > > Victor
> >
> > You get a better product when you fry shrimp/prawns with the shell on.
>
> But you'd lose the crispy batter coating, which provides a nice contrast
> when dipped into the cocktail sauce.
>
> The shrimp in the video did look delicious.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

I'll take shrimp most any way - including boiled and chilled with cocktail sauce. The restaurant next door makes a great coconut shrimp and I like the shrimp sandwich served at the L&L Drive Inn. Wish I had one now!

https://www.amazon.com/clouddrive/sh...hare_link_copy

On 10/3/2016 10:44 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 11:09:36 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>> You get a better product when you fry shrimp/prawns with the shell on.
>>>
>>> But you'd lose the crispy batter coating, which provides a nice contrast
>>> when dipped into the cocktail sauce.
>>
>> He's assuming you will eat shell and all. So wrong. Heathens.
>
> I know that. That's why I provided a winky emoticon.
>
> Hey, I thought about you this morning. Before I went to my job, I
> painted a door jamb. I reached into my homeowner's bag of tricks,
> and brought out every ill-considered mistake (except one).
>
> Hasty prep
> Cheap brush
> Inadequate light
>
> The only one I missed was crappy paint.
>
> Luckily, the area is extremely poorly lit, so the fact that it
> looks like an acre of cornfield (ruts, stubble, the occasional
> rock) will scarcely be noticeable.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
An old, eccentric guy in my home village started to paint the outside of
his house before dawn. He'd opened the wrong paint can and the result
was hilarious.
Graham

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> 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.

No, they are not thick at all, but as you say...we like what we like, even
though you were the one that said it was *weird*, to which I answered in
kind. I would never dismiss something out of hand that I haven't tried, best
to say nothing in that case, but that's up to you as well. Have a great day
Gary.

Cheri

"Gary" > wrote in message ...

> 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!

If you ever try them again, and no reason to if you don't care for the idea
of them, try this recipe, it is really good IMO. I love the canned salmon
with the cooked bones, and also bone marrow which you probably don't like
either, so I leave you to your preferences without a "nasty" or "yuk" to
some of your choices.

https://www.americastestkitchen.com/...-pepper-shrimp

Cheri

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:39:05 AM UTC-10, Cheri wrote:
> "Gary" > wrote in message ...
>
> > 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!
>
> If you ever try them again, and no reason to if you don't care for the idea
> of them, try this recipe, it is really good IMO. I love the canned salmon
> with the cooked bones, and also bone marrow which you probably don't like
> either, so I leave you to your preferences without a "nasty" or "yuk" to
> some of your choices.
>
> https://www.americastestkitchen.com/...-pepper-shrimp
>
> Cheri

Crispy fried jalapenos are totally great as a garnish. My guess is that it's going to be trending.

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 7:39:05 AM UTC-10, Cheri wrote:
>> "Gary" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > 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!
>>
>> If you ever try them again, and no reason to if you don't care for the
>> idea
>> of them, try this recipe, it is really good IMO. I love the canned salmon
>> with the cooked bones, and also bone marrow which you probably don't like
>> either, so I leave you to your preferences without a "nasty" or "yuk" to
>> some of your choices.
>>
>> https://www.americastestkitchen.com/...-pepper-shrimp
>>
>> Cheri
>
> Crispy fried jalapenos are totally great as a garnish. My guess is that
> it's going to be trending.

I don't much care for hot, so I skipped them, but I do add a *few* red
pepper flakes.

Cheri

On Mon, 3 Oct 2016 03:11:46 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

> On Sunday, October 2, 2016 at 7:31:08 PM UTC-4, cshenk wrote:
>
> > Close relative dish! This one however had no fat at all. No garlic of
> > note either. I do like the garlic shrimp. I also agree, shelling when
> > cooking this way, doesnt work. Folks who have only had shelled shrimp,
> > are missing part of the charm but unaware of it.
>
> Perhaps, but I can't imagine a load of shrimp shells passing through
> my digestive system without causing havoc.
>

It's no worse than raw vegetables.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.