Tasty bivalves.

[Seabag]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> What are "pinks"?

A man made protein, shaped like a large prawn tail and dyed a lurid 'pink' and come to think of it, most likely chosen from the same garish colour chart as the haddock "yellow"

They have a very long shelf life and often sold as "sea/fish food" tho the EU rightly stepped in as most didn't actually contain any fish at all

Hence names like "Ocean Stix" and the likes

Other gems are wrongly described as "Lobster tails" and such likes

If you take a trip to many popular seaside towns you'll see the salts of the earth fobbing off the other 'salts of the earth' with this stuff

[Louisa]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Even after it has been clearly demonstrated that

> oysters aren't necessarily expensive, the nonsense

> continues. If you can afford a couple of pints or

> a pack of fags now and again, you can afford

> oysters.

>

> Seabag - thanks for your small injection of fact,

> amongst all the made up nonsense.

Lots of things aren't necessarily expensive, you can buy a pie from the frozen department in Iceland for under a quid or a gourmet one at a specialist deli for over ?20. It's all relative. My point is the connotation associated with certain foods. Oysters are a classic example, of pointless grandstanding because of the believed and undeserved stereotype that they are something magnificent. I genuinely believe people eat them because like it or not, there is a strong link between grandiose living and eating such things. Undeserved, yes. But it exists. People like to eat them for those reasons, whether we all agree or not. As for the small injection of fact by Seabag, really? Calling fox a mange ridden sidekick? Little bit petty but there you go.

Louisa.

[Louisa]

Seabag, long before the food snob Home Counties blow ins and such like moved into the area and spread the word about snot in an ashtray. We lived very happily eating fresh, and I do mean fresh, seafood from vans and fishmongers locally which had been present in London for generations. Stewed eels, fresh from the Thames. Cockles and muscles, haddock (not dyed yellow either), cod loin. You don't need to teach working class person who grew up in London and is getting on about about the values of fresh fish. If you go to Sopers in Nunhead on a Saturday morning you'll see many of these 'sort of the earths' not buying "pinks", but buying fresh kippers for breakfast served with poached eggs. My mum gave that to me for breakfast as a kid, and in those days it didn't 'come in a bag with a knob of margarine' either! I wouldn't be seen dead eating 'crab sticks' or those other things you refer to. But you keep living that stereotypical dream.

Louisa.

[Jeremy]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> As for the small injection of fact by Seabag,

> really? Calling fox a mange ridden sidekick?

> Little bit petty but there you go.

Nope, the injection of fact was the info about the deli...

I have no doubt that some people eat things because they believe them to be exclusive. And I agree that it is a daft waste of money. But I'm not convinced that oysters qualify - they're not something I've personally ever considered posh (unlike fois gras, caviar, etc). But I guess it's hard to tell with any certainty what people are thinking.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Love kippers as well. On toast for breakfast.

When I was a kid we ate a lot of fish. My dad would buy a crab on a Saturday and spend the morning dressing it.

[Sue]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> >

> Why are fishmongers a con? They sell something I

> like, I buy it because I like the taste. They sell

> something you like, you buy it because of the

> price. Simple as that really.

..........

>

it's just sad that I can't have an opinion

> without being shouted down and made to look stupid

> for that opinion. That's all.

>

Well if you have ridiculous opinions like the statement in bold above, you can't really blame people for thinking you are somewhat stupid about some things.

Read it again.

I suggest you have no evidence whatsoever on which to base your opinion, which is presented as fact.

[DulwichFox]

Seabag..

Yellow Haddock IS smoked...

Some smoked fish is still smoked in huts over wood fires..

However most smoked fish are smoked in electric smoking machines.. wether they are dyed or not..

Mange ridden Fox

[Louisa]

Sue come on now. Lots of people on here dig me and others out for using Iceland over the years because it's cheap and has special offers on certain items. They know nothing about me, other than I was regular shopper there so didn't understand or appreciate good food. That's fine if they want to have that underlying belief, therefore, don't see a problem with me having a similar belief that they go to certain shops and restaurants for the same reasons, to feel good about spending more on food, with some sort of (misguided IMO) view that they are getting something better than someone like me who 'doesn't understand food', and guess what that's fine too. Whatever floats your boat. Oysters are eaten to make the person feel good, they enjoy the process of eating it and the price, that's my opinion. I'm not knocking it, for different reasons I get gratification from BOGOF deals at supermarkets!

Louisa.

[Sue]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

>

> Yellow Haddock IS smoked...

I don't think all of it is.

God knows why they add dye to it, anyway.

[Sue]

Louisa Wrote:

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

Oysters are eaten to

> make the person feel good, they enjoy the process

> of eating it and the price, that's my opinion.

But Louisa, that may be your opinion, but can you not see that it is a gross generalisation and basically just ridiculous?

Just because other people also have stupid opinions doesn't make yours any less stupid, sorry.

Can people not eat something just because they like it? They may be eating it because they can afford to, but that's a completely separate issue.

I won a bottle of champagne in a tombola thing in the Summer, and it was a revelation.

I can tell you, if I could afford it I would drink champagne, and it would have nothing to do with the price. It would be because it tasted a bloody sight nicer than prosecco from the Co-Op :))

ETA: On the other hand, I don't like caviar, and wouldn't eat it even if I won the lottery :)

[edcam]

Well said Sue & Seabag. Yet another thread succumbs to Louisa's trolling. I can't believe that she is really so incredulous that other people might like something that she doesn't. Only a complete fool would subscribe to that opinion.

She does love a wind-up, yet wonders why she is corralled for her own safety.

[Louisa]

Edcam it really is lamentable hearing yet another regular play the 'trolling' card, simply because you refuse to appreciate someone's honest reflection on the underlying reasons for others liking certain things. I'm disappointed in you. You imply I am a fool for these beliefs, and yet others who have similar opinions in role reversal are congratulated on their opinions. If I and foxy were not consistently goaded perhaps we could have these adult debates without them being taken back to the bare bones, every single time. It really is just plain consecending, and boring.

Louisa.

[Louisa]

Sue Wrote:

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

>

> But Louisa, that may be your opinion, but can you

> not see that it is a gross generalisation and

> basically just ridiculous?

Sue of course I concede it is a generalisation. But if the cap fits. The way I see it is simple, if certain people feel the need to brag about specific food items on here, then they should be open to direct criticism and not take offence to being called up on their reasons for eating those foods. It's no different to me being stereotyped for shopping at certain supermarkets or eating/drinking certain things. And as you know, this does happen. All the time. This is a forum where we can pull people up on the ridiculous and not have to feel ashamed for doing so. Particularly when it is a celebrated sport on this forum to ridicule and pull myself and others with similar beliefs on a regular basis.

>

> Can people not eat something just because they

> like it? They may be eating it because they can

> afford to, but that's a completely separate

> issue.

>

I'm sure some people do eat things because they enjoy them, it's not a one way street. But who is to say they don't do it for reasons of social climbing too? Yes it's a generalisation, but sometimes generalisations are correct. BTW I agree about cavier, although I'm 50/50 on champagne. Recent studies have shown grape varieties grown in Kent/Sussex are on a par with the champagne region because of the similar temperate climate, and yet they are not celebrated as much. Go figure!

Louisa.

[????]

edcam Wrote:

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

> Well said Sue & Seabag. Yet another thread

> succumbs to Louisa's trolling. I can't believe

> that she is really so incredulous that other

> people might like something that she doesn't.

> Only a complete fool would subscribe to that

> opinion.

>

> She does love a wind-up, yet wonders why she is

> corralled for her own safety.

Yup, she was running around like an uncontrolled blow-ins brat in a pub/cafe. Now she's in the kid friendly environment of the lounge all is well.

all 'bl0w 1n' doesn't work???

[Jeremy]

To be fair, Louisa is very good at what she does. Even though we can spot the deliberating goading from a mile off, we still seem to get dragged in.

[Louisa]

Admin decided to ban 'blow in' because it was offensive to multi millionaire incomers who like oysters and 12 quid burgers. Diddums.

Louisa.

[DulwichFox]

Sue Wrote:

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

> I won a bottle of champagne in a tombola thing in

> the Summer, and it was a revelation.

>

> I can tell you, if I could afford it I would drink

> champagne, and it would have nothing to do with

> the price. It would be because it tasted a bloody

> sight nicer than prosecco from the Co-Op :))

Would it of tasted a bloody sight nicer than Prosecco from M&S or Waitrose.. ?

Foxy

[jacks09]

Louisa you argue against people for the same reason they argue against you.

You judge people on their choices and presume to know their underlying motives whilst also being defensive against your own views on such things.

Please tell me you realise this and are playing up to it......the other option being your are really as lacking in self awareness as people imply you are.

[Seabag]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> Edcam it really is lamentable hearing yet another

> regular play the 'trolling' card, simply because

> you refuse to appreciate someone's honest

> reflection on the underlying reasons for others

> liking certain things. I'm disappointed in you.

> You imply I am a fool for these beliefs, and yet

> others who have similar opinions in role reversal

> are congratulated on their opinions. If I and foxy

> were not consistently goaded perhaps we could have

> these adult debates without them being taken back

> to the bare bones, every single time. It really is

> just plain consecending, and boring.

>

> Louisa.

Oh hum, it's no too hard to explain

You (and him) goad people with your troll like 'class' posts, regularly making people out to be 'you stupid/we clever'

Are you not suprised that people will rip into you and expose the stupidity of the argument ?

Trouble is you do it again and again, so you're going to get it harsher and harder

And it's not that your opinion aren't valid, as it goes I agree that people across the board do things 'for show' and that includes eating (oysters et al) and and other crimes against the fragility of being a human being

But really, what is your thing, what's your chip about people? Is it an inferiority thing, is that what get's you going.

Maybe people looking up/down gets you going, though in observation, it is a trait you exhibit too. And you're aware of that I'm sure.

Maybe a little self loathing projected onto others, I don't wholly know (or care) what the root cause is. However, don't be wondering why people launch at you, as it's what you do to 'them' and maybe any attention is some attention in this way of yours

In general and when it's kept in polite (and clever) measure, much like swearing, your posts are funny and I often laugh. But when the lid comes off it's the opposite, and you loose any creditability built up

Still, you seem to like it. So good luck

[Sue]

maxxi Wrote:

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

> Sue Wrote:

>

> > I had forgotten you could cook oysters, maybe I

> > need to try them cooked and I might change my

> mind

> > :)

>

>

> You could do the Nigella Lawson method and use a

> good quality Oyster Sauce in a steak pie or stew

> instead of the wee beasties themselves - like

> anchovy essence in some meat dishes (Victorians

> and ancient Romans loved it) it really adds

> something.

Will try that, I love anchovy sauce :)

[edcam]

Louisa, I have tried to rise above it but the fact that you're criticising people for liking something but trying to imply that there are "underlying" reasons for someone liking a particular foodstuff is, frankly, foolish.

Why do you think it's ok to patronise and insult people and then play the victim?

Louisa Wrote:

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

> Edcam it really is lamentable hearing yet another

> regular play the 'trolling' card, simply because

> you refuse to appreciate someone's honest

> reflection on the underlying reasons for others

> liking certain things. I'm disappointed in you.

> You imply I am a fool for these beliefs, and yet

> others who have similar opinions in role reversal

> are congratulated on their opinions. If I and foxy

> were not consistently goaded perhaps we could have

> these adult debates without them being taken back

> to the bare bones, every single time. It really is

> just plain consecending, and boring.

>

> Louisa.

[Sue]

DulwichFox Wrote:

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

>

> Would it of tasted a bloody sight nicer than

> Prosecco from M&S or Waitrose.. ?

I don't know, Fox.

As we don't have either of those shops round here (yet) I don't shop in them, let alone buy their prosecco :))

And PLEASE PLEASE stop writing "would of" and "could of" instead of "would have" and "could have", it's driving me (even more) round the bend :))

[Seabag]

Anyway, I think the place opens tomorrow or Thursday

It's forever to be known (in my head) as the Offensive Oyster of Dulwich Village

[Sue]

Does anybody else remember that short-lived place selling oysters and champagne at enormous expense which opened in the market which was there before the Brick House?? They were in the space on the left just as you went in.

They seemed to think that people would pay an arm and a leg to sit in the less than salubrious surroundings of the market and sip champagne.

And there was a stall just selling oysters in the market for a time, as well (not the same people).

[Louisa]

Seabag Wrote:

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

>

> Oh hum, it's no too hard to explain

>

> You (and him) goad people with your troll like

> 'class' posts, regularly making people out to be

> 'you stupid/we clever'

Once again you miss the point entirely. The class related posts are grounded in fact, not fiction (as I see it anyway). Sorry to 'goad' you, but sometimes the truth does hurt. I'm not making you or anyone else out to be stupid, just expressing my opinions, as you are. What's wrong with that?

> Are you not suprised that people will rip into you

> and expose the stupidity of the argument ?

I could fire the same argument straight back at you, and have done on this very thread. Be honest now, why do you like oysters? (This is an example btw don't take it literally).

> Trouble is you do it again and again, so you're

> going to get it harsher and harder

Same applies to you too. Hence my responses.

> And it's not that your opinion aren't valid, as it

> goes I agree that people across the board do

> things 'for show' and that includes eating

> (oysters et al) and and other crimes against the

> fragility of being a human being

> But really, what is your thing, what's your chip

> about people? Is it an inferiority thing, is that

> what get's you going.

The way I see it, I have no chip. I am just reflecting upon various stereotypes which I believe do have a factual grounding and need exposing ocassionally. As I said before, I'm not judging you, and I'm sure you're not judging me (with regards class or food or anything else). It's an opinion, one you might disagree with and get at, but there you have it.

>

> In general and when it's kept in polite (and

> clever) measure, much like swearing, your posts

> are funny and I often laugh. But when the lid

> comes off it's the opposite, and you loose any

> creditability built up

>

> Still, you seem to like it. So good luck

I am not seeking credibility, nor am I concerned about whether people like me or my opinions, I don't care either way! If I have an opinion I will state it, good or bad. You're exactly the same Seabag. If you agree with some of what I say that's great, can we not have some opinions we agree on and some we disagree on? Is the EDF opinion police out enforcing a clamp down on any opinion which doesn't fit with the general agreed consensus? (To be fair obviously they are, hence my confinement here in the lounge whilst other serial offenders are trawling the general issues section genuinely trolling unlike myself who just says it as it is).

Louisa.