We could walk but we'd never get there
Dec. 25th, 2005 09:54 amI was going to have this great long commentary post about getting to California, but it's not actually that exciting and two days old at this point. At any rate, after sitting for 130 minutes on an airplane on the ground in Chicago (having "left the gate on time") I did make it here. Crab is yummy and has a better food-for-effort ratio than lobster.
Still don't have plans for the week; I'd be psyched to see people. If you're around the Bay Area, and aren't
jadia, poke me in any of the usual ways. (Trying to be covert about this whole livejournal thing around my parents...)
Still don't have plans for the week; I'd be psyched to see people. If you're around the Bay Area, and aren't
no subject
Date: 2005-12-25 07:40 pm (UTC)Heh. I have the opposite opinion. With lobster, the tail and claw meat are immediately accessible. The chest area is comparable in difficulty to access in both, and lobster chest meat is tender and tasty, even crab-like, even if it is not quite as good as crab.
no subject
Date: 2005-12-25 10:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-12-28 09:27 pm (UTC)We must be talking about different things. Jonas crabs are pretty tasteless, and thus totally not worth the effort. Blue crabs are tasty, but there is not much meat in the legs, which in my opinion are about comparable to lobster legs for food/effort, and the chest area is comparable or worse to the chest area of lobster. Dungeness crabs are somewhat tasty (I've been a bit disappointed with them though), but while they are big, still require a lot of effort for not a whole lot of meat.
I've heard that king crabs are not really crabs, but if that is what you have in mind, I'll give you that their legs are pretty easy to crack and have a lot of meat. Their bodies are again a bit annoying to plunder. And in my opinion, while tasty, king crab is not as tasty as blue crab or lobster.