"Musashi" wrote in message
. com...

Actually I seem to have made a mistake. I stated that Americans "use to"
shoot seals because of
competition for fish.
The anti-salmon farming sites seem to indicate that Americans "are"
currently shooting seals because
they invade the pens. Exactly what the porpoises/dolphins do in Japan.

"Chef!" wrote in message
...

"Musashi" wrote in message
. com...

"Jules Network Test" wrote in message
...
I chose the words to the subject line very carefully, as it is the
Japanese
who eat whales and dolphins not out of necessity (unlike Innuits),
therefore
one could say that the subject matter raised questions about
harvesting
depleting stock. It is beside the point to this alongside to what is
reared
for eating and that which is wild and, if hunted to today's quotas,
will
oneday be extinct.
It is also hypocritical for Mr/Mrs/Ms Musashi to label myself a
'mental
retard' when he/she feels I have labelled the Japanese in an unfair
manner -
he/she must have as much regard towards the mentally challenged as for
the
poor dolphins.
For the record, I have a lot of Japanese friends, both in and out of
Japan,
and they don't share pro whaling camp.


Sorry but I find your last statement lacking in credibility.
You say you chose your words carefully???

I hardly think you should be sorry for my incredible statement.

Ok I'm not. Your subject line is not "incredible".
It is misleading as it contains false information, and it is offensive to an
entire nationality.


"What is it with the Japanese" means "what is wrong with the Japanese."
Your subject line does NOT mean "what is the Japanese attitude".

These are very similar and is open to interpretation by the author/reader,
when the whole sentence is read. It is also the view of one who, in any
given civilised society, would have found the reports disturbing. It is
also why the photographers went to such trouble to highlight such acts.
'Japanese' in this context does not, and was not meant to be racist or
encapsulate the Japanese as a whole, but rather the perpetrators of this
act.

Nice try but very weak.
Your words "the Japanese attitude" clearly means the opinion of the Japanese
people
as a whole. It can not be construed to mean anything else.

If you considered these words carefully I suggest you go back to school
for
a remedial English class.

Why, is this a personal attack Ms Myashi?

Furthermore, if you indeed have alot of Japanese friends both in and out
of Japan then any
one of them would have told you that porpoises are not customarily
considered food in Japan,
that you will never find it in any fish market or restaurant.
Had you been talking about whale, that would have been a different
matter.

If you read that sentence again, you won't find any mention of fish
markets
or restaurants, all that was mentioned were that my Japanese friends are
against the hunting of whales, including dolphins and porpoises. No, not
about food or buying it at the market stall. Remedial classes anyone?
Oh,
my apologies, those classes are for the mentally retards only, and that
would certainly not include your royal highness Ms Myashi (or whatever)


Then why the subject line with the words "this kind of food"??
Did you get even one opinion from all of your alleged Japanese friends
concerning
this article which you intend to post? If you had, you would have known that
porpoises
and dolphins aren't considered food in Japan.
Then your subject line would not give the false impression that they were
"food".

The striped dolphins (not bottle nosed clever intelligent Flipper
dolphins
of TV fame) were being killed because of competetion for fish. The same
reason that
American Fishermam use to shoot seals because of competition for salmon.

Surely they have a right to exist and if survival means eating fish then
so
be it - afterall they're sea creatures. If they need to cull the
'competition', then there is surely a more humane way to make the kill
more
effective and not let the creatures bleed to death.

Most State Departments of Game currently consider slowly "bleeding to death"
by way of bowhunting
to be a more humane way (loss of conciousness) of killing than by gunshot
(massive trauma).
Therefore this is a debatable point.

Additionally much of Japans fish stocks are farmed
in ocean pens which are attacked by the porpoises. Perhaps a better
approach should be taken to solve the problem, but you posting a
misleading subject line does nothing
to accomplish that.

Better security or porpoise proofing the pens. I don't hear reports from
Scottish fisheries about otters taking their crop.

Yes, but US North Pacific, Alaskan and Canadain fish farms appear to engage
in shooting the seals
which attack their pens. This is no different than what happens in Japan.

"Musashi" wrote in message
om...

Most State Departments of Game currently consider slowly "bleeding to
death"
by way of bowhunting
to be a more humane way (loss of conciousness) of killing than by gunshot
(massive trauma).
Therefore this is a debatable point.

Interesting concept. However, I would much rather be shot in the head and
die instantly than be sliced and slowly and painfully bleed to death. But
that's just me.

"shadow self" wrote in message
...

"Musashi" wrote in message
om...

Most State Departments of Game currently consider slowly "bleeding to
death"
by way of bowhunting
to be a more humane way (loss of conciousness) of killing than by
gunshot
(massive trauma).
Therefore this is a debatable point.

Interesting concept. However, I would much rather be shot in the head and
die instantly than be sliced and slowly and painfully bleed to death. But
that's just me.


I had always thought so too, until I read about it.

shadow self wrote:

"Musashi" wrote in message
om...


Most State Departments of Game currently consider slowly "bleeding to

death"

by way of bowhunting
to be a more humane way (loss of conciousness) of killing than by gunshot
(massive trauma).
Therefore this is a debatable point.


Interesting concept. However, I would much rather be shot in the head and
die instantly than be sliced and slowly and painfully bleed to death. But
that's just me.



You're just splitting hairs. Personally, I would rather be left unharmed.

"cory" wrote in message
om...

Interesting concept. However, I would much rather be shot in the head
and
die instantly than be sliced and slowly and painfully bleed to death.
But
that's just me.


You're just splitting hairs. Personally, I would rather be left unharmed.

*laugh* Point.

Have tried both Alaskan and Scottish wild salmon. What's your point? You
parodize the subject to the workings of an abattoir earlier. The fact is we
all need to eat to survive and the way civilisation has evolved is to
industrialise the slaughter method putting as little pain and distress on
the animals as possible. I like my steaks and fish just like the next
person. I am not a tree hugging Mother Earth vegetarian, and I don't
condemn those that are. My distinction is that, what I eat is sustainable
and, where possible and as far as I know, killed in a fashion which
conscientious and morally acceptable. Culling is another matter, if what
you say is true -the dolphins pose a competative threat to the fisheries-
then who are we judge the workings of Mother Nature?

"Musashi" wrote in message
om...
Since you make a clear distinction between "culled from the wild" and
"reared" may I assume
that you only eat Farm Raised Salmon and never Wild Alaskan Salmon?

"Chef!" wrote in message
...
what a dumb F***. I shouldn't even dignify it with a reply, however to
put
the record straight. Foie Gras is only the liver part of the fowl, true
it's force fed to enlarge the liver. Where in the post did you see me
condone this practice? For whatever reason the French so, the entire
goose
is used, feathers, fat et al - none is wasted. For the second point,
the
geese are reared and - in particular the Foie Gras de D'oie flock are
government regulated and the birds are usually what is termed 'free
range'.
The dolphins are wild and if the culling at this rate continues, it will
be
wiped out. I would not be suprised that you folks misundertand the
delights
of Foie Gras, when the cheesebugger is considered the daily staple.



"Tea" wrote in message
...

"Musashi" wrote in message
. com...

Actually, what I failed to mention earlier is that porpoise/dophin
is
NOT
a
KNOWN JAPANESE FOOD.
In other words, if you go walking into a Japanese restaurant and ask
for
Flipper don't be surprised if you
get laughed at.


I had a similarly stupid discussion the other day on Craigslist, with
a
nit
who asked what the 'Asian culture's opinion' was on eating dog meat.
After
explaining that there was no Asian culture opinion since most Asians
don't
eat dogs, and that some South Koreans liked dog whereas some did not
and
fought against the sale of dog meat, the same person asked me pretty
much
the same question again.

Why is this a stupid discussion? Because Chef would never ask what is
it
with the American attitude towards the murder of geese for foie gras.
There
is no American opinion. Very few people eat foie gras, some people
think
it's wrong to do so, and some people would eat it even if you held a
gun
to
their heads and told them to stop. The same with the American
attitude
towards milkfed veal, or the American attitude towards eating
crawdads.
There are Orthodox Jews in my town, and the last thing I looked, they
were
al American. If I asked them what I thought of veal in cream sauce,
or
of
crawfish etoufee, would their opinion really signify anything? For
that
matter, do the taste buds of a Louisianian reall reflects what someone
from
wisconsin thinks of a food he may never well have tasted, and is
fairly
obscure?
A better example would be possum, which is considered a delicacy in
certain
parts of the rural South. If I took a picture of a possum getting sho
t
on
the internet along with a story of how possum is sometimes found in
cans
and
jars along the backroads of Georgia, Chef would probably not call
this
reflective of the American attitude towards members of the rodent
family
or
wonder aloud what we thought of said attitudes. I can tell you
faithfully,
as a new Yorker, I have never tasted possum in my life, although I am
pretty
sure my granddaddy did. I also have no opinion on the Black American
attitude towards the bizarre practice of eating a pig's intestines
after
scouring them and cooking them on the stove without stuffing them
first-
since I have never had hog maws and chitlins in my life, as I did not
grow
up on a farm and do not wear overalls to work. My black American
friends
from a Caribbean have even less of an opinion.

"Musashi" wrote in message
om...

"Chef!" wrote in message
...

"Musashi" wrote in message
. com...

"Jules Network Test" wrote in message
...
I chose the words to the subject line very carefully, as it is the
Japanese
who eat whales and dolphins not out of necessity (unlike Innuits),
therefore
one could say that the subject matter raised questions about
harvesting
depleting stock. It is beside the point to this alongside to what
is
reared
for eating and that which is wild and, if hunted to today's quotas,
will
oneday be extinct.
It is also hypocritical for Mr/Mrs/Ms Musashi to label myself a
'mental
retard' when he/she feels I have labelled the Japanese in an unfair
manner -
he/she must have as much regard towards the mentally challenged as
for
the
poor dolphins.
For the record, I have a lot of Japanese friends, both in and out of
Japan,
and they don't share pro whaling camp.


Sorry but I find your last statement lacking in credibility.
You say you chose your words carefully???

I hardly think you should be sorry for my incredible statement.

Ok I'm not. Your subject line is not "incredible".
It is misleading as it contains false information, and it is offensive to
an
entire nationality.


"What is it with the Japanese" means "what is wrong with the
Japanese."
Your subject line does NOT mean "what is the Japanese attitude".

These are very similar and is open to interpretation by the
author/reader,
when the whole sentence is read. It is also the view of one who, in any
given civilised society, would have found the reports disturbing. It is
also why the photographers went to such trouble to highlight such acts.
'Japanese' in this context does not, and was not meant to be racist or
encapsulate the Japanese as a whole, but rather the perpetrators of this
act.

Nice try but very weak.
Your words "the Japanese attitude" clearly means the opinion of the
Japanese
people
as a whole. It can not be construed to mean anything else.

If you considered these words carefully I suggest you go back to
school
for
a remedial English class.

Why, is this a personal attack Ms Myashi?

Furthermore, if you indeed have alot of Japanese friends both in and
out
of Japan then any
one of them would have told you that porpoises are not customarily
considered food in Japan,
that you will never find it in any fish market or restaurant.
Had you been talking about whale, that would have been a different
matter.

If you read that sentence again, you won't find any mention of fish
markets
or restaurants, all that was mentioned were that my Japanese friends are
against the hunting of whales, including dolphins and porpoises. No,
not
about food or buying it at the market stall. Remedial classes anyone?
Oh,
my apologies, those classes are for the mentally retards only, and that
would certainly not include your royal highness Ms Myashi (or whatever)


Then why the subject line with the words "this kind of food"??
Did you get even one opinion from all of your alleged Japanese friends
concerning
this article which you intend to post? If you had, you would have known
that
porpoises
and dolphins aren't considered food in Japan.
Then your subject line would not give the false impression that they were
"food".


Yes, they're killed and canned. I am sure it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to work out what canning meat is about. Perhaps it's another
medium for Damien Hirst?

"Gerry" wrote in message
d...
In article , JohnW
wrote:

I think you mean 'chitterlings'?

Go down South and pronounce it like that and see what happens.

The idea of someone who's not from the south eating that sludge would
be even more amazing.

Same with menudo...

The standard English word is chitterlings. Below the Mason-Dixon Line, the
word is 'chitlins' and is sometimes written that way on containers. The
standard English term is pig's stomach- but again, down South a pig's
stomach is hog maws.

Actually many of us eat chitlins all the time- every time we have a hot dog
made with natural casing. There are other countries where people eat
chitlins as a delicacy, too. I would eat them except that they smell
something awful and look worse. However, my father would be more likely to
eat chitlins than some 'nasty' food like sushi- after all, fish is for
cooking unless it's bait. He would be even more grossed out by sweetbreads
or tripe.
On the other hand, I love that quintessential bad American food- White
Castle hamburgers. I do draw the line at Velveeta, Spam, and putting
mayonnaise on sandwiches, though. Some things are just too depraved.

The "point" is that you are against culling wild creatures because
eventually it will not be
sustainable. Why have you tried Alaskan Wild Salmon? Are you not aware that
their stocks
were reduced to such levels that the fishery became restricted and that is
what gave birth to
the salmon farming boom? The same salmon farming boom, according to some
advocates of
anti-fish farming that is ruining our environment and giving cause to
farmers shooting seals because
they attack the pens.
How any creature is killed and whether that particular method is
"conscientious and morally acceptable"
is very subjective, depending on your cultural, religious, moral upbringing.
And it is questionable if
one can reasonablr apply ones own beliefs on others throughout the world.


"Chef!" wrote in message
...
Have tried both Alaskan and Scottish wild salmon. What's your point? You
parodize the subject to the workings of an abattoir earlier. The fact is
we
all need to eat to survive and the way civilisation has evolved is to
industrialise the slaughter method putting as little pain and distress on
the animals as possible. I like my steaks and fish just like the next
person. I am not a tree hugging Mother Earth vegetarian, and I don't
condemn those that are. My distinction is that, what I eat is sustainable
and, where possible and as far as I know, killed in a fashion which
conscientious and morally acceptable. Culling is another matter, if what
you say is true -the dolphins pose a competative threat to the fisheries-
then who are we judge the workings of Mother Nature?

"Musashi" wrote in message
om...
Since you make a clear distinction between "culled from the wild" and
"reared" may I assume
that you only eat Farm Raised Salmon and never Wild Alaskan Salmon?

"Chef!" wrote in message
...
what a dumb F***. I shouldn't even dignify it with a reply, however
to
put
the record straight. Foie Gras is only the liver part of the fowl,
true
it's force fed to enlarge the liver. Where in the post did you see me
condone this practice? For whatever reason the French so, the entire
goose
is used, feathers, fat et al - none is wasted. For the second point,
the
geese are reared and - in particular the Foie Gras de D'oie flock are
government regulated and the birds are usually what is termed 'free
range'.
The dolphins are wild and if the culling at this rate continues, it
will
be
wiped out. I would not be suprised that you folks misundertand the
delights
of Foie Gras, when the cheesebugger is considered the daily staple.



"Tea" wrote in message
...

"Musashi" wrote in message
. com...

Actually, what I failed to mention earlier is that porpoise/dophin
is
NOT
a
KNOWN JAPANESE FOOD.
In other words, if you go walking into a Japanese restaurant and
ask
for
Flipper don't be surprised if you
get laughed at.


I had a similarly stupid discussion the other day on Craigslist,
with
a
nit
who asked what the 'Asian culture's opinion' was on eating dog meat.
After
explaining that there was no Asian culture opinion since most Asians
don't
eat dogs, and that some South Koreans liked dog whereas some did not
and
fought against the sale of dog meat, the same person asked me pretty
much
the same question again.

Why is this a stupid discussion? Because Chef would never ask what
is
it
with the American attitude towards the murder of geese for foie
gras.
There
is no American opinion. Very few people eat foie gras, some people
think
it's wrong to do so, and some people would eat it even if you held a
gun
to
their heads and told them to stop. The same with the American
attitude
towards milkfed veal, or the American attitude towards eating
crawdads.
There are Orthodox Jews in my town, and the last thing I looked,
they
were
al American. If I asked them what I thought of veal in cream sauce,
or
of
crawfish etoufee, would their opinion really signify anything? For
that
matter, do the taste buds of a Louisianian reall reflects what
someone
from
wisconsin thinks of a food he may never well have tasted, and is
fairly
obscure?
A better example would be possum, which is considered a delicacy in
certain
parts of the rural South. If I took a picture of a possum getting
sho
t
on
the internet along with a story of how possum is sometimes found in
cans
and
jars along the backroads of Georgia, Chef would probably not call
this
reflective of the American attitude towards members of the rodent
family
or
wonder aloud what we thought of said attitudes. I can tell you
faithfully,
as a new Yorker, I have never tasted possum in my life, although I
am
pretty
sure my granddaddy did. I also have no opinion on the Black
American
attitude towards the bizarre practice of eating a pig's intestines
after
scouring them and cooking them on the stove without stuffing them
first-
since I have never had hog maws and chitlins in my life, as I did
not
grow
up on a farm and do not wear overalls to work. My black American
friends
from a Caribbean have even less of an opinion.

In article , Tea
wrote:

I differ:

The standard English word is chitterlings. Below the Mason-Dixon
Line, the word is 'chitlins' and is sometimes written that way on
containers.

The *pronunciation" is "chitlins". Slowly the word has morphed to
cover the spelling.

The standard English term is pig's stomach- but again, down South a
pig's stomach is hog maws.

The standard english term is intestines, not stomach. Menudo, or tripe,
is stomach.

Actually many of us eat chitlins all the time- every time we have a
hot dog made with natural casing.

The difference between a thin cooked intestine and a fried/souped gob
of this stuff is quite a bit different. It's kind of like saying that
bonito flakes is just fish, or that potato chips are just vegetable
oil. Well it's true physically but not culinarily.

There are other countries where people eat chitlins as a delicacy,
too. I would eat them except that they smell something awful and
look worse. However, my father would be more likely to eat chitlins
than some 'nasty' food like sushi- after all, fish is for cooking
unless it's bait. He would be even more grossed out by sweetbreads
or tripe. On the other hand, I love that quintessential bad American
food- White Castle hamburgers. I do draw the line at Velveeta, Spam,
and putting mayonnaise on sandwiches, though. Some things are just
too depraved.

I draw the line almost nowhere. Chitlins, menudo as a result of a few
horrifying experiences are on the far side. Natto is too. So is
grated yama-imo. Few others.

--
///--- Vote for the richest Republican. He understand the common man.

"Gerry" wrote in message
d...
In article , Tea
wrote:

I differ:

The standard English word is chitterlings. Below the Mason-Dixon
Line, the word is 'chitlins' and is sometimes written that way on
containers.

The *pronunciation" is "chitlins". Slowly the word has morphed to
cover the spelling.

That I know.

The standard English term is pig's stomach- but again, down South a
pig's stomach is hog maws.

The standard english term is intestines, not stomach. Menudo, or tripe,
is stomach.

Really? I'll agree with you- but on a couple of the doul food sites that had
recipes for hog maws and chitlins, hog maws were defined as pig's stomach.
Tripe is any animal's stomach. Sometimes it's called tripe, menudo, or any
other name that is local- but I could be wrong. I won't argue.

Actually many of us eat chitlins all the time- every time we have a
hot dog made with natural casing.

The difference between a thin cooked intestine and a fried/souped gob
of this stuff is quite a bit different. It's kind of like saying that
bonito flakes is just fish, or that potato chips are just vegetable
oil. Well it's true physically but not culinarily.

As I made clear, while I know intestines are used as sausage casings, I have
no desire whatsoever to eat chitterlings, regardless of spelling.
My mother used to spoil my eating a perfectly good bran muffin by talking
about the amount of roughage it had in it. My father, who can eat pretty
much anything, one left the table when I jokingly referred to eggs as baby
chickens. As you say, technical truth does not tell the whole story, and I
would agree- nevertheless, many of us do eat pig's intestines while not
giving them a second thought. It's the preparation that makes the dish
unappetizing in this case, not the ingredients. I believe the comment was
about never wanting to eat pig's intestines ,and that's why I clarified that
many of us do it- but we prefer them taut and thin and filled with meat, not
stringy, smelly, and served in a bowl.

Nevertheless, there are people who will not eat pig in any form or part, no
matter how enticingly it is served. I would also say that names are a good
part of what we will eat, not just the culinary style- the story given above
about a man eating chitlins and liking them well enough until they were
given their true name is a perfect example. And bonito flakes will
sometimes taste delicious to someone who does not know they are eating fish.
I think all of us sushi and sashimi eaters have expereienced things like
this with friends- like the time one of my friends was chowing down on unagi
until I told her it was eel. I don't think it was the preperation that
changed the taste, and I think it's the imagery conjured up by the word
'intestine' that makes sausage makers describe their products as being in
'natural casings' as opposed to any number of other terms.

In article , Tea
wrote:

The standard English term is pig's stomach- but again, down South
a pig's stomach is hog maws.

The standard english term is intestines, not stomach. Menudo, or
tripe, is stomach.

Really? I'll agree with you- but on a couple of the doul food sites
that had recipes for hog maws and chitlins, hog maws were defined as
pig's stomach. Tripe is any animal's stomach. Sometimes it's called
tripe, menudo, or any other name that is local- but I could be wrong.
I won't argue.

I think it's a bit murky, as it has to do with folk usage and it all
tastes like shit anyway. In any case menudo is a soup in which tripe
is a component. I don't think my homeys call that honey-comb sludge
"menudo", but tripa.

As I made clear, while I know intestines are used as sausage casings,
I have no desire whatsoever to eat chitterlings, regardless of
spelling. My mother used to spoil my eating a perfectly good bran
muffin by talking about the amount of roughage it had in it. My
father, who can eat pretty much anything, one left the table when I
jokingly referred to eggs as baby chickens.

It's funny how local customs change things. Though it might not be
pleasant, you can talk about almost anything at the table with me. I
don't really associate abstractions with the physical reality of my
food. I know if I make "baa" sounds while rack of lamb is on the
table, some folks get really upset.

As you say, technical truth does not tell the whole story, and I
would agree- nevertheless, many of us do eat pig's intestines while
not giving them a second thought. It's the preparation that makes
the dish unappetizing in this case, not the ingredients.

We're in total accord!

I believe the comment was about never wanting to eat pig's intestines
,and that's why I clarified that many of us do it- but we prefer them
taut and thin and filled with meat, not stringy, smelly, and served
in a bowl.

Now, you're speaking about culinary considerations.

Nevertheless, there are people who will not eat pig in any form or
part, no matter how enticingly it is served.

And now, I assume you're now talking about the psychological
considerations. Some people don't want their different foods to touch.
There are many different views of a world.

I would also say that names are a good part of what we will eat, not
just the culinary style- the story given above about a man eating
chitlins and liking them well enough until they were given their true
name is a perfect example.

The movie "My Favorite Year" has a lovely scene in which everybody is
delighted by a delightfully prepared game bird before they find out it
is a parrot. "And man it put up some kind of fight!" the cook adds.
Whereupon everybody looks a bit wan.

And bonito flakes will sometimes taste delicious to someone who does
not know they are eating fish. I think all of us sushi and sashimi
eaters have expereienced things like this with friends- like the time
one of my friends was chowing down on unagi until I told her it was
eel. I don't think it was the preperation that changed the taste,
and I think it's the imagery conjured up by the word 'intestine' that
makes sausage makers describe their products as being in 'natural
casings' as opposed to any number of other terms.

--
///--- Vote for the richest Republican. He understand the common man.